OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 03:25:27 AM

Title: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 03:25:27 AM
"Ego te absolvo." The Catholic Route to Birth Control

The Church forbids contraceptive methods. But it has always been more indulgent in the confessional, not only today but also in the past. Here is what priests did in the first half of the twentieth century, in one of the most Christianized areas of Italy

ROME, September 8, 2010 – It is believed to be one of the most reliable proofs of the relentless advance of secularization: the contrast thought to have been created between Church teaching on contraception and the actual behavior of the population, including observant Catholics.

In reality, the divergence between the teaching, for example, of "Humanae Vitae" and the contraceptive practices in use among the faithful is by no means a new development in recent decades....

Article is at
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344650?eng=y
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 03:33:21 AM
This confirms what I have been saying about Catholics and birth control for years past. In the process I have had my ears boxed frequently and called nasty names, but here we are.... I was pretty much on target
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: synLeszka on September 08, 2010, 04:45:29 AM
This confirms what I have been saying about Catholics and birth control for years past. In the process I have had my ears boxed frequently and called nasty names, but here we are.... I was pretty much on target
I am new here. Please tell me what  is Orthodoxy's official stance on anticonception.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 04:56:05 AM
This confirms what I have been saying about Catholics and birth control for years past. In the process I have had my ears boxed frequently and called nasty names, but here we are.... I was pretty much on target
I am new here. Please tell me what  is Orthodoxy's official stance on anticonception.

Answering that will derail the focus of the OP which is Catholic birth control.

If you click on the "Contraception" tag at the bottom of the messages, it will take you to many threads which answer your question.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2010, 08:40:03 AM
It is not clear what is being read into the stats.  For one thing, in the 20's accurate information on the rhythm method became available and began to be promoted by the Vatican's clergy.  On what basis does this study conclude that coitus interruptus was the main method?  Didn't the Italians know in the first half of the 20th century about that method?

I'm trying to find where I came across that in the 1800's the Vatican instructed the confessors to recommend the rhythm method over coitus interruptus, which would be the real sea change according to the basis the Vatican seeks for its basis of its present day teaching: those fathers it cites as against ABC rail against NFP too.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 11:53:55 AM
"Ego te absolvo." The Catholic Route to Birth Control

The Church forbids contraceptive methods. But it has always been more indulgent in the confessional, not only today but also in the past. Here is what priests did in the first half of the twentieth century, in one of the most Christianized areas of Italy

ROME, September 8, 2010 – It is believed to be one of the most reliable proofs of the relentless advance of secularization: the contrast thought to have been created between Church teaching on contraception and the actual behavior of the population, including observant Catholics.

In reality, the divergence between the teaching, for example, of "Humanae Vitae" and the contraceptive practices in use among the faithful is by no means a new development in recent decades....

Article is at
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344650?eng=y
This is like arguing that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on masterbation because almost all Catholic men have masterbated at one time or that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on lying, because almot all Catholics have lied at some point.
"It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It's that Christianity has been found hard, and left untried." -G.K. Chesterton
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2010, 12:21:21 PM
"Ego te absolvo." The Catholic Route to Birth Control

The Church forbids contraceptive methods. But it has always been more indulgent in the confessional, not only today but also in the past. Here is what priests did in the first half of the twentieth century, in one of the most Christianized areas of Italy

ROME, September 8, 2010 – It is believed to be one of the most reliable proofs of the relentless advance of secularization: the contrast thought to have been created between Church teaching on contraception and the actual behavior of the population, including observant Catholics.

In reality, the divergence between the teaching, for example, of "Humanae Vitae" and the contraceptive practices in use among the faithful is by no means a new development in recent decades....

Article is at
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344650?eng=y
This is like arguing that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on masterbation because almost all Catholic men have masterbated at one time

And your women don't?  I ask that as reading the Vatican's citations on its teaching, it seems its authorities are only barely aware of women (and want to keep it that way), and I once asked a seminarian with Jesuit training if female masterbation was morally wrong and he was stumped.

Quote
or that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on lying, because almot all Catholics have lied at some point.

I'll give you that.

Quote
"It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It's that Christianity has been found hard, and left untried." -G.K. Chesterton
That quote has interesting implications for celibates expounding on married life.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 12:29:59 PM
"Ego te absolvo." The Catholic Route to Birth Control

The Church forbids contraceptive methods. But it has always been more indulgent in the confessional, not only today but also in the past. Here is what priests did in the first half of the twentieth century, in one of the most Christianized areas of Italy

ROME, September 8, 2010 – It is believed to be one of the most reliable proofs of the relentless advance of secularization: the contrast thought to have been created between Church teaching on contraception and the actual behavior of the population, including observant Catholics.

In reality, the divergence between the teaching, for example, of "Humanae Vitae" and the contraceptive practices in use among the faithful is by no means a new development in recent decades....

Article is at
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344650?eng=y
This is like arguing that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on masterbation because almost all Catholic men have masterbated at one time or that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on lying, because almot all Catholics have lied at some point.
"It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It's that Christianity has been found hard, and left untried." -G.K. Chesterton

The crux of this matter is not in what you are writing.  It has been stated here very eloquently by Mary and others that the Pope is infallible when he expresses the mind of the Church.  What this article helps to show is that the current teaching on contraception is not the mind of the Church.  But we have known that all along ever since the time of the writing of Humanae Vitae.   At that time the majority opinion was very much against such a teaching.  Indeed the majority of the Papal Commission created by the Pope to advise him on the matter was against the teaching which ended up in the Encyclical.  The Pope instead went with was is now known as the Minority Opinion.    Plainly lacking the consent of the Church and being contrary to the mind of the Church the teaching in Humanae Vitae cannot claim to be an infallible expression of the truth of the Church.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 01:46:24 PM
"Ego te absolvo." The Catholic Route to Birth Control

The Church forbids contraceptive methods. But it has always been more indulgent in the confessional, not only today but also in the past. Here is what priests did in the first half of the twentieth century, in one of the most Christianized areas of Italy

ROME, September 8, 2010 – It is believed to be one of the most reliable proofs of the relentless advance of secularization: the contrast thought to have been created between Church teaching on contraception and the actual behavior of the population, including observant Catholics.

In reality, the divergence between the teaching, for example, of "Humanae Vitae" and the contraceptive practices in use among the faithful is by no means a new development in recent decades....

Article is at
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344650?eng=y
This is like arguing that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on masterbation because almost all Catholic men have masterbated at one time or that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on lying, because almot all Catholics have lied at some point.
"It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It's that Christianity has been found hard, and left untried." -G.K. Chesterton

The crux of this matter is not in what you are writing.  It has been stated here very eloquently by Mary and others that the Pope is infallible when he expresses the mind of the Church.  What this article helps to show is that the current teaching on contraception is not the mind of the Church.  But we have known that all along ever since the time of the writing of Humanae Vitae.   At that time the majority opinion was very much against such a teaching.  Indeed the majority of the Papal Commission created by the Pope to advise him on the matter was against the teaching which ended up in the Encyclical.  The Pope instead went with was is now known as the Minority Opinion.    Plainly lacking the consent of the Church and being contrary to the mind of the Church the teaching in Humanae Vitae cannot claim to be an infallible expression of the truth of the Church.
Aw, I think you are missing Chesterton's "democracy of the dead here". The Pope did, in fact, have the consent of the Church if you were to look back at 1900 years of tradition. For 1900 years, the Church clearly taught that contraception was wrong and this demonstrates a clear consensus among Catholics. The twentieth century, is clearly an anomoly, and should not be considered the measure of the sensus fidei which preserves the deposit of the Christian faith.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 08, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
"Ego te absolvo." The Catholic Route to Birth Control

The Church forbids contraceptive methods. But it has always been more indulgent in the confessional, not only today but also in the past. Here is what priests did in the first half of the twentieth century, in one of the most Christianized areas of Italy

ROME, September 8, 2010 – It is believed to be one of the most reliable proofs of the relentless advance of secularization: the contrast thought to have been created between Church teaching on contraception and the actual behavior of the population, including observant Catholics.

In reality, the divergence between the teaching, for example, of "Humanae Vitae" and the contraceptive practices in use among the faithful is by no means a new development in recent decades....

Article is at
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344650?eng=y
This is like arguing that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on masterbation because almost all Catholic men have masterbated at one time or that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on lying, because almot all Catholics have lied at some point.
"It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It's that Christianity has been found hard, and left untried." -G.K. Chesterton

The crux of this matter is not in what you are writing.  It has been stated here very eloquently by Mary and others that the Pope is infallible when he expresses the mind of the Church.  What this article helps to show is that the current teaching on contraception is not the mind of the Church.  But we have known that all along ever since the time of the writing of Humanae Vitae.   At that time the majority opinion was very much against such a teaching.  Indeed the majority of the Papal Commission created by the Pope to advise him on the matter was against the teaching which ended up in the Encyclical.  The Pope instead went with was is now known as the Minority Opinion.    Plainly lacking the consent of the Church and being contrary to the mind of the Church the teaching in Humanae Vitae cannot claim to be an infallible expression of the truth of the Church.

Majority doesn't rule in Orthodoxy either.  I have heard solidly anti-papal Orthodox declare that the Church is not a democracy!!

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2010, 03:59:30 PM
"Ego te absolvo." The Catholic Route to Birth Control

The Church forbids contraceptive methods. But it has always been more indulgent in the confessional, not only today but also in the past. Here is what priests did in the first half of the twentieth century, in one of the most Christianized areas of Italy

ROME, September 8, 2010 – It is believed to be one of the most reliable proofs of the relentless advance of secularization: the contrast thought to have been created between Church teaching on contraception and the actual behavior of the population, including observant Catholics.

In reality, the divergence between the teaching, for example, of "Humanae Vitae" and the contraceptive practices in use among the faithful is by no means a new development in recent decades....

Article is at
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344650?eng=y
This is like arguing that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on masterbation because almost all Catholic men have masterbated at one time or that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on lying, because almot all Catholics have lied at some point.
"It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It's that Christianity has been found hard, and left untried." -G.K. Chesterton

The crux of this matter is not in what you are writing.  It has been stated here very eloquently by Mary and others that the Pope is infallible when he expresses the mind of the Church.  What this article helps to show is that the current teaching on contraception is not the mind of the Church.  But we have known that all along ever since the time of the writing of Humanae Vitae.   At that time the majority opinion was very much against such a teaching.  Indeed the majority of the Papal Commission created by the Pope to advise him on the matter was against the teaching which ended up in the Encyclical.  The Pope instead went with was is now known as the Minority Opinion.    Plainly lacking the consent of the Church and being contrary to the mind of the Church the teaching in Humanae Vitae cannot claim to be an infallible expression of the truth of the Church.
Aw, I think you are missing Chesterton's "democracy of the dead here". The Pope did, in fact, have the consent of the Church if you were to look back at 1900 years of tradition. For 1900 years, the Church clearly taught that contraception was wrong and this demonstrates a clear consensus among Catholics. The twentieth century, is clearly an anomoly, and should not be considered the measure of the sensus fidei which preserves the deposit of the Christian faith.
The "clear teaching" that Humanae Vitae apparently depends on (I cite the apologia for it, as it doesn't cite patristics on this at all) does not include HV in that consensus, as it is a tradition which abhors sexuality (but not gender: it is rather misogynist) in general and sex in particular, and basically teaches that if weak individuals succumb to their animal urges, then the only excuse is to procreate and serve as breeders for the monastic orders-Jerome's "I praise marriage because it gives me virgins."

This distinction in the teaching that the Vatican accepted from St. Jerome and his ilk appears in 1852, long before the Lambeth Conference:
Quote
The very concept of “rhythm” was first considered by the Catholic Church in 1853. The Bishop of Amiens, France, submitted the following question to the Sacred Penitentiary:

“Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?”

On March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Pius IX) answered as follows:

“Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.”

Another reference to rhythm appeared in 1880. Fr. Le Conte submitted the following questions to the Sacred Penitentiary:

“Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?”

“Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism of her husband but cannot correct him, or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?”

The response of the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Leo XIII), dated June 16, 1880, was:

“Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.”
http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.html

Contrast that with Jerome, Lactantius et alia
Quote
Clement of Alexandria

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid. 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. 3o7]).

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" (ibid. 6:23:18).

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]).

Augustine

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny" (ibid., 22:30).
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM

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

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

There is no hint of "consumated" (i.e. ejaculation) at all in the passage. "Barnabas" abhors oral sex (amongst other things). Period.  It is being read into the text here to serve the new (for the Vatican) teaching on the matter.  To that end the apologists make use of feminist studies and other dubious sources, for instance:
Quote
The operative words, to be quoted in context are: “Thou shalt not use magic (ou mageuseis); thou shalt not use drugs (ou pharmakeusis).” It is reasonable to conclude that the double prohibition refers to contraception and abortion because these terms (mageia) and (pharmaka) were understood to cover the use of magical rites and/or medical potions for both contraception and abortion. Moreover, the context in the Didache refers to sex activity and the right to life.
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_004.htm
Feminst studies have claimed that the witch craze of the renaissance (yes, although these studies don't dwell on or mention that fact, they didn't happen during the "dark" Middle Ages) was to persecute women, by cutting off the source of contraceptions, the women herbalists.  It is things like this which do continue the dependence of this mentality on appeals to 'natural law" (which HV nearly only argues, besides an appeal to magisterium authority), something its apologia also cite the Fathers on. From the same site of Fr. Hardon:
Quote
It is in this context that the following stricture of contraception was made.  Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to “be fruitful and multiply.” He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations. Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word Exechiel: “Put away your fornications.” 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 (Paedagogues, 2, 10; 95, 3, GCS, 12, 214).

Here St. Clement is not mentioning the rhythm for contraception, but the rhythm method for conception. In other words, married couples shouldn't mate out of season. In the language question of Katharevousa versus Dhemotiki, the point was made that even the most die hard supporter of Katharevousa had to resort sometimes to Dhemotiki: no one made love in Katharevousa. So it was claimed. I get the feeling that St. Clement would, if he would, make love in Katharevousa, if not in Attic.

To find biblical support, the HV apologists include references to castration:
Quote
St. John is referring to castration. Castration is, of course, an extreme form of contraception--but it is nonetheless a form of contraception, one that has been fairly widely used during this century in population control, e.g., in India and China. In fact, sterilization is the most popular form of contraception in the world (according to the UN Population Division): 30% of contraceptors rely on female sterilization and 8% rely on male sterlization.

(1) Castration is a form of contraception.
(2) St. John was preaching in opposition to Gnostics who used castration precisely as a form of contraception.

(3) The Fathers and canons condemned self-castration because it was primarily a contraceptive method.

(4) St. John uses exactly the same language with regard to a pharmacological-type and other forms of contraception.

(5) Sterilization is simply surgical or chemical castration.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/contraception-early-church-teaching.html

And the apologetics get quite inventive:
Quote
Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

And of course, there's Onan:
Quote
The most popular modern day, rationale that Protestants use, is that Onan is killed because he did not fulfill the obligation to marry and bear children for Tamar. There are several reasons why this is not a reasonable explanation. First, we need to compare Gen. 38 to Deuteronomy 25:1-10, which eliminates this possible explanation. It says in Deuteronomy, that regardless of a man's motives for refusing to raise up seed for a dead brother, the man is not to be put to death. Thus, the person not only does not marry, but also provides no offspring for his brother who died: The Levirate responsibility. Here in Deuteronomy, he is to be humiliated only (shoe pulled off, face spit on, etc.). On the other hand, Onan was put to death for what he did, while the man in Deu. 25 is not.


As we compare the two Bible texts (Gen. 38:8-10 and Deu. 25:5-10) we need to ask ourselves, "What did Onan do that the man of Deu. 25 didn't do?" The difference in conduct explains the difference in the penalty meted out by God. And the difference is that Onan wasted (killed, destroyed) his seed, the other man did not. Suppose the man in Deu. 25 thinks exactly as Onan, saying to himself, "I don't want to raise up seed for my brother," yet doesn't waste his seed? What happens to him according to the law of God? -- humiliation only, regardless of his unloving thoughts. (Provan, The Bible and Birth Control p. 13)


Notice the text. It says that what he did was displeasing to God. He did spill the semen, thus enjoy sex, and made sure that there were no consequences. What did Onan do that displeased God? Notice that in the verse, he spilled the semen on the ground. However, the word that is used for spilling semen on the ground is not merely spill. I find out from Provan, that 'The verb used is not for merely emitting semen. Out of all the verses which mention the emission of semen in the Old Testament, the Onan verse 'he wasted his seed on the ground' is the only verse to employ the word 'shachath' (which means 'to waste, corrupt, destroy, devastate', . This word is used in many passages as a synonym for 'killed.', destroy. (For example see Gen. 6:17, 9:15 and Judges 20:21) Does one not see that there might be a reason for Onan's emission of seed to described as a 'killing' of seed, while all other passages use words which merely mean 'emit'? The reason is that in all other passages, no one does anything to intentionally harm the semen--but in Onan's case, he deliberately killed his. If 'there is nothing in the whole Bible that specifically condemns the spilling of the seed', then why does Scripture use the very negative word 'shacath' in Onan's case but not in any of the others? (Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, p. 40)

As a matter of fact, we do not have to go to Deuteronomy 25 to show that this argument is insufficient. We can look at Genesis 38 itself to see that the argument that Onan was killed because of his refusing to fulfill the obligation to raise up children is insufficient. This theory that God is punishing Onan merely because he failed to fulfill the Levirate rule makes God capricious. For example, in this very chapter of Genesis, not only does Judah not get punished for doing the very same thing as Onan did, (withholding his son Selah from her), but Selah himself withholds himself from her. Given that Judah himself compounds the problem by making her a harlot, Onan's specific act of destroying seed takes a larger picture. Judah had promised to give Tamar his son to her (v.11), when he was older. Judah himself is deceitful, and he himself, when caught, admits that he is a worse sinner than herself (v. 26). Shelah himself, who was now grown up, (v. 14), also was deceitful, should have taken her as her husband, and raised up children. He did not. Tamar notices this, but no deaths of either Judah or Shelah. Thus, they were all in a sense rebellious, and did not do what they should have. So, what is the difference between Judah, Onan, and Shelah? The only substantive fact is that Onan went into her lawfully as he married her (unlike Judah who went into her unlawfully), but only Onan destroyed the seed. Ultimately any attempt to exclude this as the principle grounds of Onan's death, is a pure attempt at expediency.
One has argued that there is another difference between Onan and the person in Deut. 25 that makes it worse. That he married her, but refused to raise up children.

Actually, that would make Onan actually better, because he actually married the sister. Thus, he is better off even than those who wouldn't marry the sister. Thus, he shouldn't have even been criticized and humiliated by Tamar, as prescribed for those in Deuteronomy 25. The fact that Onan married her actually means he obeyed what he should have done in this specific area. Although God in his own wisdom sometimes treat people differently, and punishes them differently, for the most part, he is equitable in his treatment of people. There is nothing shown in Judah's or his son Shelah's life, that show that they had a great relationship with God and that is how they did this with no repercussions while Onan was killed. This reasoning thus falls short of explaining the difference.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/birthcontrol.html
Question is, what is the difference between the man who just refuses to sleep with his wife when she is in her infertile period?  Something the HV apologists never focus on is the text gives Onan's intention.  How is that different, in these apologies, from the intention behind NFP?

One thing I am curious about: it is a common belief that nursing acts as a contraceptive.  I'm not sure how early that goes back (I've seen some references in Islamic texts, but no Christian ones come to mind).  Is there any Patristics on intercourse during nursing? How different would that be from hormones preventing ovulation?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Michael L on September 08, 2010, 05:51:31 PM
Is there a Orthodox commentary or interpretation of Onan's Sin in Gen. 38:8-10?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 06:03:01 PM
"Ego te absolvo." The Catholic Route to Birth Control

The Church forbids contraceptive methods. But it has always been more indulgent in the confessional, not only today but also in the past. Here is what priests did in the first half of the twentieth century, in one of the most Christianized areas of Italy

ROME, September 8, 2010 – It is believed to be one of the most reliable proofs of the relentless advance of secularization: the contrast thought to have been created between Church teaching on contraception and the actual behavior of the population, including observant Catholics.

In reality, the divergence between the teaching, for example, of "Humanae Vitae" and the contraceptive practices in use among the faithful is by no means a new development in recent decades....

Article is at
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344650?eng=y
This is like arguing that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on masterbation because almost all Catholic men have masterbated at one time or that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on lying, because almot all Catholics have lied at some point.
"It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It's that Christianity has been found hard, and left untried." -G.K. Chesterton

The crux of this matter is not in what you are writing.  It has been stated here very eloquently by Mary and others that the Pope is infallible when he expresses the mind of the Church.  What this article helps to show is that the current teaching on contraception is not the mind of the Church.  But we have known that all along ever since the time of the writing of Humanae Vitae.   At that time the majority opinion was very much against such a teaching.  Indeed the majority of the Papal Commission created by the Pope to advise him on the matter was against the teaching which ended up in the Encyclical.  The Pope instead went with was is now known as the Minority Opinion.    Plainly lacking the consent of the Church and being contrary to the mind of the Church the teaching in Humanae Vitae cannot claim to be an infallible expression of the truth of the Church.
Aw, I think you are missing Chesterton's "democracy of the dead here". The Pope did, in fact, have the consent of the Church if you were to look back at 1900 years of tradition. For 1900 years, the Church clearly taught that contraception was wrong and this demonstrates a clear consensus among Catholics. The twentieth century, is clearly an anomoly, and should not be considered the measure of the sensus fidei which preserves the deposit of the Christian faith.
The "clear teaching" that Humanae Vitae apparently depends on (I cite the apologia for it, as it doesn't cite patristics on this at all) does not include HV in that consensus, as it is a tradition which abhors sexuality (but not gender: it is rather misogynist) in general and sex in particular, and basically teaches that if weak individuals succumb to their animal urges, then the only excuse is to procreate and serve as breeders for the monastic orders-Jerome's "I praise marriage because it gives me virgins."

This distinction in the teaching that the Vatican accepted from St. Jerome and his ilk appears in 1852, long before the Lambeth Conference:
Quote
The very concept of “rhythm” was first considered by the Catholic Church in 1853. The Bishop of Amiens, France, submitted the following question to the Sacred Penitentiary:

“Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?”

On March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Pius IX) answered as follows:

“Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.”

Another reference to rhythm appeared in 1880. Fr. Le Conte submitted the following questions to the Sacred Penitentiary:

“Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?”

“Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism of her husband but cannot correct him, or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?”

The response of the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Leo XIII), dated June 16, 1880, was:

“Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.”
http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.html

Contrast that with Jerome, Lactantius et alia
Quote
Clement of Alexandria

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid. 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. 3o7]).

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" (ibid. 6:23:18).

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]).

Augustine

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny" (ibid., 22:30).
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM

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

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

There is no hint of "consumated" (i.e. ejaculation) at all in the passage. "Barnabas" abhors oral sex (amongst other things). Period.  It is being read into the text here to serve the new (for the Vatican) teaching on the matter.  To that end the apologists make use of feminist studies and other dubious sources, for instance:
Quote
The operative words, to be quoted in context are: “Thou shalt not use magic (ou mageuseis); thou shalt not use drugs (ou pharmakeusis).” It is reasonable to conclude that the double prohibition refers to contraception and abortion because these terms (mageia) and (pharmaka) were understood to cover the use of magical rites and/or medical potions for both contraception and abortion. Moreover, the context in the Didache refers to sex activity and the right to life.
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_004.htm
Feminst studies have claimed that the witch craze of the renaissance (yes, although these studies don't dwell on or mention that fact, they didn't happen during the "dark" Middle Ages) was to persecute women, by cutting off the source of contraceptions, the women herbalists.  It is things like this which do continue the dependence of this mentality on appeals to 'natural law" (which HV nearly only argues, besides an appeal to magisterium authority), something its apologia also cite the Fathers on. From the same site of Fr. Hardon:
Quote
It is in this context that the following stricture of contraception was made.  Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to “be fruitful and multiply.” He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations. Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word Exechiel: “Put away your fornications.” 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 (Paedagogues, 2, 10; 95, 3, GCS, 12, 214).

Here St. Clement is not mentioning the rhythm for contraception, but the rhythm method for conception. In other words, married couples shouldn't mate out of season. In the language question of Katharevousa versus Dhemotiki, the point was made that even the most die hard supporter of Katharevousa had to resort sometimes to Dhemotiki: no one made love in Katharevousa. So it was claimed. I get the feeling that St. Clement would, if he would, make love in Katharevousa, if not in Attic.

To find biblical support, the HV apologists include references to castration:
Quote
St. John is referring to castration. Castration is, of course, an extreme form of contraception--but it is nonetheless a form of contraception, one that has been fairly widely used during this century in population control, e.g., in India and China. In fact, sterilization is the most popular form of contraception in the world (according to the UN Population Division): 30% of contraceptors rely on female sterilization and 8% rely on male sterlization.

(1) Castration is a form of contraception.
(2) St. John was preaching in opposition to Gnostics who used castration precisely as a form of contraception.

(3) The Fathers and canons condemned self-castration because it was primarily a contraceptive method.

(4) St. John uses exactly the same language with regard to a pharmacological-type and other forms of contraception.

(5) Sterilization is simply surgical or chemical castration.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/contraception-early-church-teaching.html

And the apologetics get quite inventive:
Quote
Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

And of course, there's Onan:
Quote
The most popular modern day, rationale that Protestants use, is that Onan is killed because he did not fulfill the obligation to marry and bear children for Tamar. There are several reasons why this is not a reasonable explanation. First, we need to compare Gen. 38 to Deuteronomy 25:1-10, which eliminates this possible explanation. It says in Deuteronomy, that regardless of a man's motives for refusing to raise up seed for a dead brother, the man is not to be put to death. Thus, the person not only does not marry, but also provides no offspring for his brother who died: The Levirate responsibility. Here in Deuteronomy, he is to be humiliated only (shoe pulled off, face spit on, etc.). On the other hand, Onan was put to death for what he did, while the man in Deu. 25 is not.


As we compare the two Bible texts (Gen. 38:8-10 and Deu. 25:5-10) we need to ask ourselves, "What did Onan do that the man of Deu. 25 didn't do?" The difference in conduct explains the difference in the penalty meted out by God. And the difference is that Onan wasted (killed, destroyed) his seed, the other man did not. Suppose the man in Deu. 25 thinks exactly as Onan, saying to himself, "I don't want to raise up seed for my brother," yet doesn't waste his seed? What happens to him according to the law of God? -- humiliation only, regardless of his unloving thoughts. (Provan, The Bible and Birth Control p. 13)


Notice the text. It says that what he did was displeasing to God. He did spill the semen, thus enjoy sex, and made sure that there were no consequences. What did Onan do that displeased God? Notice that in the verse, he spilled the semen on the ground. However, the word that is used for spilling semen on the ground is not merely spill. I find out from Provan, that 'The verb used is not for merely emitting semen. Out of all the verses which mention the emission of semen in the Old Testament, the Onan verse 'he wasted his seed on the ground' is the only verse to employ the word 'shachath' (which means 'to waste, corrupt, destroy, devastate', . This word is used in many passages as a synonym for 'killed.', destroy. (For example see Gen. 6:17, 9:15 and Judges 20:21) Does one not see that there might be a reason for Onan's emission of seed to described as a 'killing' of seed, while all other passages use words which merely mean 'emit'? The reason is that in all other passages, no one does anything to intentionally harm the semen--but in Onan's case, he deliberately killed his. If 'there is nothing in the whole Bible that specifically condemns the spilling of the seed', then why does Scripture use the very negative word 'shacath' in Onan's case but not in any of the others? (Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, p. 40)

As a matter of fact, we do not have to go to Deuteronomy 25 to show that this argument is insufficient. We can look at Genesis 38 itself to see that the argument that Onan was killed because of his refusing to fulfill the obligation to raise up children is insufficient. This theory that God is punishing Onan merely because he failed to fulfill the Levirate rule makes God capricious. For example, in this very chapter of Genesis, not only does Judah not get punished for doing the very same thing as Onan did, (withholding his son Selah from her), but Selah himself withholds himself from her. Given that Judah himself compounds the problem by making her a harlot, Onan's specific act of destroying seed takes a larger picture. Judah had promised to give Tamar his son to her (v.11), when he was older. Judah himself is deceitful, and he himself, when caught, admits that he is a worse sinner than herself (v. 26). Shelah himself, who was now grown up, (v. 14), also was deceitful, should have taken her as her husband, and raised up children. He did not. Tamar notices this, but no deaths of either Judah or Shelah. Thus, they were all in a sense rebellious, and did not do what they should have. So, what is the difference between Judah, Onan, and Shelah? The only substantive fact is that Onan went into her lawfully as he married her (unlike Judah who went into her unlawfully), but only Onan destroyed the seed. Ultimately any attempt to exclude this as the principle grounds of Onan's death, is a pure attempt at expediency.
One has argued that there is another difference between Onan and the person in Deut. 25 that makes it worse. That he married her, but refused to raise up children.

Actually, that would make Onan actually better, because he actually married the sister. Thus, he is better off even than those who wouldn't marry the sister. Thus, he shouldn't have even been criticized and humiliated by Tamar, as prescribed for those in Deuteronomy 25. The fact that Onan married her actually means he obeyed what he should have done in this specific area. Although God in his own wisdom sometimes treat people differently, and punishes them differently, for the most part, he is equitable in his treatment of people. There is nothing shown in Judah's or his son Shelah's life, that show that they had a great relationship with God and that is how they did this with no repercussions while Onan was killed. This reasoning thus falls short of explaining the difference.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/birthcontrol.html
Question is, what is the difference between the man who just refuses to sleep with his wife when she is in her infertile period?  Something the HV apologists never focus on is the text gives Onan's intention.  How is that different, in these apologies, from the intention behind NFP?

One thing I am curious about: it is a common belief that nursing acts as a contraceptive.  I'm not sure how early that goes back (I've seen some references in Islamic texts, but no Christian ones come to mind).  Is there any Patristics on intercourse during nursing? How different would that be from hormones preventing ovulation?
Where is the yawn emoticon when you need it?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2010, 09:40:39 PM
Where is the yawn emoticon when you need it?

Try sleep.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 10:38:17 PM
Where is the yawn emoticon when you need it?

Try sleep.
Well, since your last post almost put me to sleep. ;)
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 10:39:24 PM
Is there a Orthodox commentary or interpretation of Onan's Sin in Gen. 38:8-10?
Well, it used to be that contraception was wrong. But of course, the EO Church changed it's teaching on this matter during the 20th century.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2010, 10:43:25 PM
Is there a Orthodox commentary or interpretation of Onan's Sin in Gen. 38:8-10?
Well, it used to be that contraception was wrong. But of course, the EO Church changed it's teaching on this matter during the 20th century.

since you're the "expert" in "consistency," what is the difference between the mentality imputed to Onan, and the man who uses the rhythm method to remain fatherless?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 10:45:22 PM
Is there a Orthodox commentary or interpretation of Onan's Sin in Gen. 38:8-10?
Well, it used to be that contraception was wrong. But of course, the EO Church changed it's teaching on this matter during the 20th century.

since you're the "expert" in "consistency," what is the difference between the mentality imputed to Onan, and the man who uses the rhythm method to remain fatherless?
The point of Natural Family planning, is not to remain childless. It's to naturally space children for ligitimate reasons. If a person uses NFP with the same mentality as ABC, then such a person is also guilty of Onanism.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Ionnis on September 08, 2010, 10:46:04 PM
I'm confused.  I was told contraception was a sin in Orthodoxy.  :-/
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2010, 10:53:39 PM
Is there a Orthodox commentary or interpretation of Onan's Sin in Gen. 38:8-10?
Well, it used to be that contraception was wrong. But of course, the EO Church changed it's teaching on this matter during the 20th century.

since you're the "expert" in "consistency," what is the difference between the mentality imputed to Onan, and the man who uses the rhythm method to remain fatherless?
The point of Natural Family planning, is not to remain childless. It's to naturally space children for ligitimate reasons. If a person uses NFP with the same mentality as ABC, then such a person is also guilty of Onanism.
The problem is that your friend St. Jerome et alia condemned a person who ejaculated in a womb that he knew wasn't fertile as wasting sperm/semen (they didn't know the difference) was committing Onanism. The Vatican introduced the distinction between NFP and ABC, despite their authorities (St. Jerome et alia) in 1852.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: John Larocque on September 08, 2010, 11:01:05 PM
Using NFP to deliberately exclude children from marriage can be objectively no different than contraception itself.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 11:45:18 PM
I'm confused.  I was told contraception was a sin in Orthodoxy.  :-/

No Orthodox Church forbids contraception,.  The teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church was given in a major statement of the Russian Synod in 2000.

You can read it here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg397242.html#msg397242

There were two bishops known in the Orthodox Church to forbid contraception - the just reposed Metropolitan Augustinos of Florina Greece and the just retired Bishop Artemije of Kosovo Serbia.  Both completely forbade all birth control, including NFP.   The fact that we know the views of these bishops is, in a way, evidence that they were outside the norm.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 11:50:26 PM

Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.


The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

"I’m aware of the safeguarding of contraception on the basis of an intrinsic relation to the concept of “natural law”, but please explain this: Prior to the release of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI indirectly admitted in his address to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964 that the teaching on birth control may be changed - the Pope asserted the validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control “at least as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” (Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1964).

"The RCC places the sinfulness of contraception on a par with adultery, fornication, murder etc. as a mortal sin falling under natural law which cannot be altered. Is the Pope’s frank admission above indicative of a teaching which is unalterable by Rome’s criteria? What would your reaction be were a Pope to state that the teaching on adultery remains the same “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it”??
 
 
I believe that we are seeing, on the Roman Catholic side, the beginnings of a re-formulation of this matter. Proabably by discerning more deeply the principle of double effect, contraception will find greater acceptance among the papal theologians, and the overly rigorous teaching of Humanae Vitae will be deepened and clarified.

To be frank, I am of the opinion that this will take place, not because of any imperative of the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox but because a failure to do so will see a deepening crisis of authority within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I do not think that the clergy and the laity will find themselves able to go on living with the strain of the present double speak and pretense which requires them to say one thing while actually doing another.

So, I am optimistic on this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original Italian of Paul VI's address...

È allo studio, diciamo, che speriamo presto concludere con la collaborazione di molti ed insigni studiosi. Ne daremo pertanto presto le conclusioni nella forma che sarà ritenuta più adeguata all’oggetto trattato e allo scopo da conseguire. Ma diciamo intanto francamente che non abbiamo finora motivo sufficiente per ritenere superate e perciò non obbliganti le norme date da Papa Pio XII a tale riguardo; esse devono perciò ritenersi valide, almeno finché non Ci sentiamo in coscienza obbligati a modificarle. In tema di tanta gravità sembra bene che i Cattolici vogliano seguire un’unica legge, quale la Chiesa autorevolmente propone; e sembra pertanto opportuno raccomandare che nessuno per ora si arroghi di pronunciarsi in termini difformi dalla norma, vigente.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Ionnis on September 08, 2010, 11:51:37 PM
I'm confused.  I was told contraception was a sin in Orthodoxy.  :-/

No Orthodox Church forbids contraception,.  The teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church was given in a major statement of the Russian Synod in 2000.

You can read it here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg397242.html#msg397242

There were two bishops known in the Orthodox Church to forbid contraception - the just reposed Metropolitan Augustinos of Florina Greece and the just retired Bishop Artemije of Kosovo Serbia.  Both completely forbade all birth control, including NFP.   The fact that we know the views of these bishops is, in a way, evidence that they were outside the norm.

Thank you very much, Father!  I am thankful for the correction. 
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 09, 2010, 03:25:01 AM
I'm confused.  I was told contraception was a sin in Orthodoxy.  :-/

No Orthodox Church forbids contraception,. .
I am confused.
1. An Orthodox priest told me that it was all right for a married couple to use contraception after they had two or three children. But generally, it would be a sin for the couple to use contraception to prevent having any children at all.
2. Did the Orthodox Church change its teaching on contraception?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 09, 2010, 03:31:09 AM
I'm confused.  I was told contraception was a sin in Orthodoxy.  :-/

No Orthodox Church forbids contraception,. .
I am confused.
1. An Orthodox priest told me that it was all right for a married couple to use contraception after they had two or three children. But generally, it would be a sin for the couple to use contraception to prevent having any children at all.
2. Did the Orthodox Church change its teaching on contraception?

Brothers,  there are literally dozens of threads on contraception in the Orthodox Church which could be revived. Clip the tag at the bottom of the page to find them.  But there are no threads about contraception in the Roman Catholic Church and, speaking as the OP, I am kind of hoping that this thread will stay on topic and not get sidetracked into Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 09, 2010, 03:50:39 AM
I'm confused.  I was told contraception was a sin in Orthodoxy.  :-/

No Orthodox Church forbids contraception,. .
I am confused.
1. An Orthodox priest told me that it was all right for a married couple to use contraception after they had two or three children. But generally, it would be a sin for the couple to use contraception to prevent having any children at all.
2. Did the Orthodox Church change its teaching on contraception?
1. That is a difference between allowing it in circumstances and forbidding it altogether.  HV, for instance, would forbid what it calls ABC no matter what the number of children or the circumstances.
2. No, but in general that is thanks to the lack of obsession of prying into such matters by the celebate clergy writing the canons etc. (there are exceptions to the rule, but in the context of the reticence on the matter-condemning abortion, extoling childbearing as a blessing, etc.-they are counterbalanced). That is why you will get such a spectrum of nearly like HV (with which I agree a lot on, but not on its basis, nor in all its particulars) to anything but abortion.  There are some who have dared to questioned the last, but they have been called on that.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 09, 2010, 04:12:50 AM
People (well, my intimate circle of learned Catholic clergy!) say that Casti Connūbii which was promulgated by Pope Pius XI in 1930 was contradicted by the teaching of Pope Paul VI in his 1965 Humanae Vitae concerning the matter of birth control.  There was a marked change of teaching between 1930 and 1965.

What we are witnessing is the slow change of teaching in the Catholic Church, from the absolute prohibition of the Church Fathers and Pope Pius XI to Pope Paul VI's acceptance of NFP and the process continues today, silently and inexorably.    This is one of the major points which is being made by the article referenced in the OP.   Birth Control is slowly but surely gaining acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church.  As of yet the latest changes have no sanction from the Vatican but the words of Pope Paul VI in Message 22 allow for the possibility of future change to the teaching in his Encyclical.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: synLeszka on September 09, 2010, 04:37:04 AM
I am interested as to the reason why an Orthodox monk is so interested about anticonception...
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 09, 2010, 04:59:19 AM
I am interested as to the reason why an Orthodox monk is so interested about anticonception...

Thirty years ago I was asked to leave the monastery and to live in the city and accept the care of three Russian parishes when their previous parish priest died.  So for 3 decades I have been living in the parishes and caring for parishioners.  Part of this care involves questions of contraception.  

That is one reason - I must be interested so that I can carry out my pastoral duties.

The other reason is more specific to this list.   The two prongs of attack employed by Catholics are always divorce and contraception.  You only have to read the many many threads to see that.

Hope this answers your question.....

Fr Ambrose
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 09, 2010, 05:06:11 AM
I am interested as to the reason why an Orthodox monk is so interested about anticonception...

Why is the whole Vatican clergy, almost all of whom are celebate (and there are concerted efforts to get rid of those very few married priests in submission to it in the East) so intereested in it?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 09, 2010, 06:15:42 AM

Quote
It is said, although I do not know if it is true, that the previous patriarch of Moscow was divorced.

If true, he wasn't remarried, which even by the Vatican's rules is A-OK.

Quote
Eastern Orthodox say that only we Roman Catholics have such inhumane regulations such as the insolubility of marriage but Coptic Orthodox do the same as Catholics.

The Copts do not have your Corban factories, a/k/a "the marriage tribunal."
What are you talking about? I have never heard of a divorced man becoming a priest in the Catholic Church.

If you think the Catholic Church is overlegalistic look at yourselves. I have never seen a Scholastic approach to anticonception than the Russian Orthodox Church Synod's decree.

Then you haven't been around, or don't know what scholastic is.  Btw, unless you are being ironic, etc. it is contraception. I'm just curious if you are coinging a new term.

Quote
Oh yes, an anticonceptive is all right if it is not abortive. What an oxymoron.
Only if you hold preformation,, and likewise do not distinguish abstinence from infanticide. As the Vatican depends so much on natural law for its teaching on this, the advance in embryology and genetics has pulled the rug from under it on this one.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 09, 2010, 04:04:43 PM
People (well, my intimate circle of learned Catholic clergy!) say that Casti Connūbii which was promulgated by Pope Pius XI in 1930 was contradicted by the teaching of Pope Paul VI in his 1965 Humanae Vitae concerning the matter of birth control.  There was a marked change of teaching between 1930 and 1965.

What we are witnessing is the slow change of teaching in the Catholic Church, from the absolute prohibition of the Church Fathers and Pope Pius XI to Pope Paul VI's acceptance of NFP and the process continues today, silently and inexorably.    This is one of the major points which is being made by the article referenced in the OP.   Birth Control is slowly but surely gaining acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church.  As of yet the latest changes have no sanction from the Vatican but the words of Pope Paul VI in Message 22 allow for the possibility of future change to the teaching in his Encyclical.
I suppose that it would be possible for the teaching to be modified somewhat. Of course, the low birthrates in European Catholic (and Orthodox) countries contrasts rather sharply with the high birthrates among Muslims. A Muslim family in our nieghborhood has six young children already, and the wife is expecting another soon.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 09, 2010, 04:49:31 PM
I suppose that it would be possible for the teaching to be modified somewhat. Of course, the low birthrates in European Catholic (and Orthodox) countries contrasts rather sharply with the high birthrates among Muslims. A Muslim family in our nieghborhood has six young children already, and the wife is expecting another soon.
To me, this is a huge reason why Catholics, Orthodox, and any other Christian groups should not be using contraception. When I was studying to become Catholic in 2006 and in the beginning of 2007, I remember being taught that it was the Church's teaching on the immorality of abortion and contraception that allowed Christianity to flourish so much early on. The Pagans practiced contraception and abortion whereas the Christians tended to have large families and procreate way more, so we quite literally outnumbered them because of our openness to life and our proper understanding of Holy Matrimony.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 09, 2010, 05:54:49 PM
I suppose that it would be possible for the teaching to be modified somewhat. Of course, the low birthrates in European Catholic (and Orthodox) countries contrasts rather sharply with the high birthrates among Muslims. A Muslim family in our nieghborhood has six young children already, and the wife is expecting another soon.
To me, this is a huge reason why Catholics, Orthodox, and any other Christian groups should not be using contraception. When I was studying to become Catholic in 2006 and in the beginning of 2007, I remember being taught that it was the Church's teaching on the immorality of abortion and contraception that allowed Christianity to flourish so much early on. The Pagans practiced contraception and abortion whereas the Christians tended to have large families and procreate way more, so we quite literally outnumbered them because of our openness to life and our proper understanding of Holy Matrimony.
I'm not sure if this is anything more than conjecture, just like those who think we live for sex pointing out the rise of monasticism and connecting it to the plumeting population once the Church took over the Roman empire.  There was a lot of contraception and abortion going on, but there was also fines and penalites for the unmarried and childless, and state promotion of large families. I'm not saying your conjecture is incorrect, just I have never seen a fact based argument in its favor.

I would rather convert the Muslims than outbreed them. The later is to follow Muhammad, the former to follow Christ.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 09, 2010, 09:22:16 PM
I would rather convert the Muslims than outbreed them.
Hi Ialmisry:
    I wish you good luck in your attempt to convert Muslims to Orthodox Christianity, especially for the Muslims in countries like Saudi Arabia. BTW, I would be interested to know about any statistics available which would give the number of Muslims in Saudi Arabia who had converted to Orthodox Christianity in the last fifty years or so and who did not subsequently have their head chopped off.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Schultz on September 09, 2010, 10:09:46 PM
I suppose that it would be possible for the teaching to be modified somewhat. Of course, the low birthrates in European Catholic (and Orthodox) countries contrasts rather sharply with the high birthrates among Muslims. A Muslim family in our nieghborhood has six young children already, and the wife is expecting another soon.
To me, this is a huge reason why Catholics, Orthodox, and any other Christian groups should not be using contraception. When I was studying to become Catholic in 2006 and in the beginning of 2007, I remember being taught that it was the Church's teaching on the immorality of abortion and contraception that allowed Christianity to flourish so much early on. The Pagans practiced contraception and abortion whereas the Christians tended to have large families and procreate way more, so we quite literally outnumbered them because of our openness to life and our proper understanding of Holy Matrimony.

That's a nice apocryphal story, but old pagan Romans were duty bound to produce lots of children before the birth of Christ and assuredly afterwards.  Those who did not were often seen as not contributing to society.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 09, 2010, 11:42:56 PM
I would rather convert the Muslims than outbreed them.
LOL...you have fun with that; let me know how that goes.  :D
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: lubeltri on September 10, 2010, 01:48:29 AM
"Ego te absolvo." The Catholic Route to Birth Control

The Church forbids contraceptive methods. But it has always been more indulgent in the confessional, not only today but also in the past. Here is what priests did in the first half of the twentieth century, in one of the most Christianized areas of Italy

ROME, September 8, 2010 – It is believed to be one of the most reliable proofs of the relentless advance of secularization: the contrast thought to have been created between Church teaching on contraception and the actual behavior of the population, including observant Catholics.

In reality, the divergence between the teaching, for example, of "Humanae Vitae" and the contraceptive practices in use among the faithful is by no means a new development in recent decades....

Article is at
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344650?eng=y
This is like arguing that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on masterbation because almost all Catholic men have masterbated at one time or that the Church is wrong on it's teaching on lying, because almot all Catholics have lied at some point.
"It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It's that Christianity has been found hard, and left untried." -G.K. Chesterton

The crux of this matter is not in what you are writing.  It has been stated here very eloquently by Mary and others that the Pope is infallible when he expresses the mind of the Church.  What this article helps to show is that the current teaching on contraception is not the mind of the Church.  But we have known that all along ever since the time of the writing of Humanae Vitae.   At that time the majority opinion was very much against such a teaching.  Indeed the majority of the Papal Commission created by the Pope to advise him on the matter was against the teaching which ended up in the Encyclical.  The Pope instead went with was is now known as the Minority Opinion.    Plainly lacking the consent of the Church and being contrary to the mind of the Church the teaching in Humanae Vitae cannot claim to be an infallible expression of the truth of the Church.

Perhaps, Father, you would have the Pope take regular polls to gauge the "consent of the Church" and then unilaterally change teaching on faith and morals to fit what the polls are saying at that time?

But he has not the power to do that. He's only the pope.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: lubeltri on September 10, 2010, 02:07:17 AM
Birth Control is slowly but surely gaining acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church.  As of yet the latest changes have no sanction from the Vatican but the words of Pope Paul VI in Message 22 allow for the possibility of future change to the teaching in his Encyclical.

Not true. And whatever Paul said, he is only the pope. Popes can say all kinds of silly things. His HV speaks far more for his ministry than something he was quoted as saying. And after John Paul II, it should be clear to you that it ain't gonna happen.

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight. Perhaps you can take our liberal dissidents off our hands for us when they finally realize that Rome isn't ever going to allow the complete divorce of sex and procreation. I can already imagine the billboards: "Be as gods in the Orthodox Church. We're more lenient than the church you're mad at."  ;) ::)
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 10, 2010, 03:49:50 AM
I would rather convert the Muslims than outbreed them.
Hi Ialmisry:
    I wish you good luck in your attempt to convert Muslims to Orthodox Christianity, especially for the Muslims in countries like Saudi Arabia. BTW, I would be interested to know about any statistics available which would give the number of Muslims in Saudi Arabia who had converted to Orthodox Christianity in the last fifty years or so and who did not subsequently have their head chopped off.
The martyrs don't count?

The numbers in Saudi Arabia (who did exist) would be harder to come by than the figures for Egypt, which I am more familiar with, and every Orthodox Christian there I know knows a Muslim who converted.  The Lord doesn't require that they turn themselves into the authorities, and many take His advice to flee to the next town/country (now adays the West).
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 10, 2010, 03:52:31 AM
I would rather convert the Muslims than outbreed them.
LOL...you have fun with that; let me know how that goes.  :D

It can be as fun as the outbreeding campaign (I've done that too, and wouldn't mind making further contributions on that front, or at least try :D).
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 10, 2010, 03:57:46 AM
Birth Control is slowly but surely gaining acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church.  As of yet the latest changes have no sanction from the Vatican but the words of Pope Paul VI in Message 22 allow for the possibility of future change to the teaching in his Encyclical.

Not true.

The contention that change is inexorably underway is the  major point of the article under discussion.   So you probably need to do more than  simply make an unsupported negative assertion.

Quote

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.

Thanks for the chortle.  You cannot be unaware of the myriad of threads on the forum in which Catholics, without a dog in the fight, attack Orthodoxy again and again on Orthodox teaching on contraception.


Quote
You can take our liberal dissidents off our hands for us when they finally realize that Rome isn't ever going to allow the complete divorce of sex and procreation. I can already imagine the billboards: "Be as gods in the Orthodox Church. We're more lenient than the church you're mad at."  ;) ::)

I am sure that most priests are like me and will not accept converts who come to us simply because they are mad at their present confession.   We need a more positive reason than that.  Individual issues such as women priests and bishops, insufferable new forms of liturgy, or changes in moral teachings may motivate people to look for a new Church home but in the end the major reason we want to hear from them is if they can affirm 'We want to be Orthodox because it is the Church founded by Jesus Christ."
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 10, 2010, 09:29:01 AM
Birth Control is slowly but surely gaining acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church.  As of yet the latest changes have no sanction from the Vatican but the words of Pope Paul VI in Message 22 allow for the possibility of future change to the teaching in his Encyclical.

Not true.

The contention that change is inexorably underway is the  major point of the article under discussion.   So you probably need to do more than  simply make an unsupported negative assertion.


Yes and by the same token from the dissenters we'll be ordaining women soon too.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: synLeszka on September 10, 2010, 12:20:04 PM
To me, this is a huge reason why Catholics, Orthodox, and any other Christian groups should not be using contraception. When I was studying to become Catholic in 2006 and in the beginning of 2007, I remember being taught that it was the Church's teaching on the immorality of abortion and contraception that allowed Christianity to flourish so much early on. The Pagans practiced contraception and abortion whereas the Christians tended to have large families and procreate way more, so we quite literally outnumbered them because of our openness to life and our proper understanding of Holy Matrimony.

That's a nice apocryphal story, but old pagan Romans were duty bound to produce lots of children before the birth of Christ and assuredly afterwards.  Those who did not were often seen as not contributing to society.
[/quote]

Yes, you are right but that was not throughout the entire time of the Roman Empire but only when the birth rate fell. If I remember correctly, the rule was three children for a free woman and four children for a semi-liberated woman. Also, there was a law which required citizens to remain married and to remarry after the death of a spouse. The majority of these laws were passed hundreds of years before the rule of Julius Caesar. There were attempts to reinstate these laws in the second century AD but they remained on the books and were not practised.  The ratio legis of these laws was to maintain a standing army. By the time of Octavian the majority of the Roman legions were composed of mercenaries or provincial soldiers. Therefore, the ancient discipline was relaxed.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 10, 2010, 12:25:39 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 10, 2010, 12:29:29 PM
I suppose that it would be possible for the teaching to be modified somewhat. Of course, the low birthrates in European Catholic (and Orthodox) countries contrasts rather sharply with the high birthrates among Muslims. A Muslim family in our nieghborhood has six young children already, and the wife is expecting another soon.
To me, this is a huge reason why Catholics, Orthodox, and any other Christian groups should not be using contraception. When I was studying to become Catholic in 2006 and in the beginning of 2007, I remember being taught that it was the Church's teaching on the immorality of abortion and contraception that allowed Christianity to flourish so much early on. The Pagans practiced contraception and abortion whereas the Christians tended to have large families and procreate way more, so we quite literally outnumbered them because of our openness to life and our proper understanding of Holy Matrimony.

That's a nice apocryphal story, but old pagan Romans were duty bound to produce lots of children before the birth of Christ and assuredly afterwards.  Those who did not were often seen as not contributing to society.

I hardly think it is a nice apocryphal story whenever a few posts back it was mentioned that we are seeing the exact same thing happen with the growth of Islam. Muslims have more babies, ergo there are more and more Muslims. Was contraception and abortion allowed amongst Pagans or wasn't it? If it was, then it only makes sense that Christianity ended up being dominant since we were out there procreating and not terminating pregnancies.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 10, 2010, 01:38:38 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.
You mean like the Vatican's anti-patristic stance of differentiating ABC from NFP, so called?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Schultz on September 10, 2010, 01:43:50 PM
I suppose that it would be possible for the teaching to be modified somewhat. Of course, the low birthrates in European Catholic (and Orthodox) countries contrasts rather sharply with the high birthrates among Muslims. A Muslim family in our nieghborhood has six young children already, and the wife is expecting another soon.
To me, this is a huge reason why Catholics, Orthodox, and any other Christian groups should not be using contraception. When I was studying to become Catholic in 2006 and in the beginning of 2007, I remember being taught that it was the Church's teaching on the immorality of abortion and contraception that allowed Christianity to flourish so much early on. The Pagans practiced contraception and abortion whereas the Christians tended to have large families and procreate way more, so we quite literally outnumbered them because of our openness to life and our proper understanding of Holy Matrimony.

That's a nice apocryphal story, but old pagan Romans were duty bound to produce lots of children before the birth of Christ and assuredly afterwards.  Those who did not were often seen as not contributing to society.

I hardly think it is a nice apocryphal story whenever a few posts back it was mentioned that we are seeing the exact same thing happen with the growth of Islam. Muslims have more babies, ergo there are more and more Muslims. Was contraception and abortion allowed amongst Pagans or wasn't it? If it was, then it only makes sense that Christianity ended up being dominant since we were out there procreating and not terminating pregnancies.

Yes, contraception WAS available to the pagans because it wasn't a religious issue for them.  Having lots of children was, however, a social issue and one that was far more pressing to the average Roman (pagan) citizen.  Of course, I don't have the numbers in front me, but I would bet my last dollar that the size of your average pagan Roman citizen's family was the same as the size of the average Christian family, citizen or not. 

The difference nowadays is that there is far more social pressure for previously Christian peoples (aka Europeans and their genetic relatives in the US) to have fewer children.  The pressure put upon the Hispanic population (at least in the US) as well as the Muslim population is generally ignored.

Your syllogism contains a logical fallacy, namely that the effect of one is the cause of another.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 10, 2010, 01:48:06 PM
I suppose that it would be possible for the teaching to be modified somewhat. Of course, the low birthrates in European Catholic (and Orthodox) countries contrasts rather sharply with the high birthrates among Muslims. A Muslim family in our nieghborhood has six young children already, and the wife is expecting another soon.
To me, this is a huge reason why Catholics, Orthodox, and any other Christian groups should not be using contraception. When I was studying to become Catholic in 2006 and in the beginning of 2007, I remember being taught that it was the Church's teaching on the immorality of abortion and contraception that allowed Christianity to flourish so much early on. The Pagans practiced contraception and abortion whereas the Christians tended to have large families and procreate way more, so we quite literally outnumbered them because of our openness to life and our proper understanding of Holy Matrimony.

That's a nice apocryphal story, but old pagan Romans were duty bound to produce lots of children before the birth of Christ and assuredly afterwards.  Those who did not were often seen as not contributing to society.

I hardly think it is a nice apocryphal story whenever a few posts back it was mentioned that we are seeing the exact same thing happen with the growth of Islam. Muslims have more babies, ergo there are more and more Muslims. Was contraception and abortion allowed amongst Pagans or wasn't it? If it was, then it only makes sense that Christianity ended up being dominant since we were out there procreating and not terminating pregnancies.
You are familiar with the term "false analogy," no? "Apples and Oranges?"....

The Muslims for their part blame the decrease in Christians, then and now, on Christian monasticism, monogamy and the ban on divorce and polygamy.  The Mormons claim they have revived early Christian practice of polygamy, and they also have grandios growth curves.

The Chinese are allowed, indeed mandated, to have abortions, contraception etc. And yet there are more of them than the Muslims. Btw, Muslims also have contraception and some allow abortion.

The pagans were fined and penalized for not having children, contraception/abortion or not, and rewarded for big families. St. Augustine mother St. Monica had only three children, and he only had one.

Again, some established facts to back up the supposition would be nice.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 10, 2010, 05:37:55 PM
I would rather convert the Muslims than outbreed them.
Hi Ialmisry:
    I wish you good luck in your attempt to convert Muslims to Orthodox Christianity, especially for the Muslims in countries like Saudi Arabia. BTW, I would be interested to know about any statistics available which would give the number of Muslims in Saudi Arabia who had converted to Orthodox Christianity in the last fifty years or so and who did not subsequently have their head chopped off.
The martyrs don't count?

You are right again, the martyrs do count. I don't know how many there were who had converted from Islam to  Christianity and were then beheaded? As you know, in Saudi Arabia, a Muslim who converts to another religion is subject to the death penalty. In Nigeria, Rev. Father Clement Ozi Bello, a young former Muslim who had converted to  and been ordained an RC priest, was tied up, had his eyes gouged out, and was then dragged through the street until he died.
I wish you every success, but I suspect that this idea of yours to convert Muslims to Orthodox Christianity might prove to be a precarious enterprise  in some cases.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 10, 2010, 05:42:19 PM
The Chinese are allowed, indeed mandated, to have abortions, contraception etc. And yet there are more of them than the Muslims.
China now has a one child per one family policy, whereas Muslims do not.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 10, 2010, 05:50:24 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.
You mean like the Vatican's anti-patristic stance of differentiating ABC from NFP, so called?

There's a very important difference between the two.  It is ignored by all detractors.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 10, 2010, 05:55:57 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.
You mean like the Vatican's anti-patristic stance of differentiating ABC from NFP, so called?

There's a very important difference between the two.  It is ignored by all detractors.

M.
Like St. Jerome et alia?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: lubeltri on September 10, 2010, 06:55:37 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.
You mean like the Vatican's anti-patristic stance of differentiating ABC from NFP, so called?

There's a very important difference between the two.  It is ignored by all detractors.

M.
Like St. Jerome et alia?

Don't claim St. Jerome as the authority on this issue unless you actually follow what he says. That wouldn't be very honest, would it?  :)
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 10, 2010, 07:51:52 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.
You mean like the Vatican's anti-patristic stance of differentiating ABC from NFP, so called?

There's a very important difference between the two.  It is ignored by all detractors.

M.
Like St. Jerome et alia?

Don't claim St. Jerome as the authority on this issue unless you actually follow what he says. That wouldn't be very honest, would it?  :)
I don't claim St. Jerome as the authority on sexual morality (God forbid!), but the apologists for Humanae Vitae claim him.  Honestly requires I cite those Fathers upon which they depend (as HV doesn't cite patristics. It can't).  Since I do not follow HV  (at least in particulars), those who follow HV  are bound to follow him, not I. I'm just citing the record.
Quote
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

That square peg cannot be put in this round hole (HV):
Quote
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

Some see this problem:
Quote
It should be noted that some of the Church Fathers use language that can suggest to modern ears that there is no unitive.aspect to marital intercourse and that there is only a procreative.aspect. It is unclear whether this is what some of them actually thought or whether they are intending simply to stress that sexual activity becomes immoral if the procreative.aspect of a given marital act is deliberately frustrated. However that may be, over the course of time the Church has called greater attention to the unitive.aspect of marital intercourse, yet it remains true that the procreative.aspect of each particular marital act must not be frustrated.
It is quite clear. Jerome harps on it "all sexual intercourse is unclean." They just want to read the distinction of HV (like the distinction between oral sex and "orally consumated sex." There authorities outside of HV and the morally based on it make no such distinction) into their sources.  Sort of wanting their cake and eating it too.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 10, 2010, 09:25:12 PM
Birth Control is slowly but surely gaining acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church.  As of yet the latest changes have no sanction from the Vatican but the words of Pope Paul VI in Message 22 allow for the possibility of future change to the teaching in his Encyclical.

Not true.

The contention that change is inexorably underway is the  major point of the article under discussion.   So you probably need to do more than  simply make an unsupported negative assertion.


Yes and by the same token from the dissenters we'll be ordaining women soon too. 

This is the use of a crude scare tactic which I am surpised to see from a person of your education.   :-[
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 10, 2010, 09:31:23 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.

My position on birth control is not *mine* but that of my bishops.   In the particular case of my own Church, the Russian Church, that position is given here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg397242.html#msg397242


You are trying to take this thread away from its topic - which is the article mentioned in the OP which speaks of the increasing acceptance of birth control in the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 11, 2010, 04:11:09 AM
Birth Control is slowly but surely gaining acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church.  As of yet the latest changes have no sanction from the Vatican but the words of Pope Paul VI in Message 22 allow for the possibility of future change to the teaching in his Encyclical.

Not true.

The contention that change is inexorably underway is the  major point of the article under discussion.   So you probably need to do more than  simply make an unsupported negative assertion.


Yes and by the same token from the dissenters we'll be ordaining women soon too. 

This is the use of a crude scare tactic which I am surpised to see from a person of your education.   :-[

Scare tactic?  To recognize dissenters in the Church?

Ok
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 11, 2010, 03:09:45 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.

My position on birth control is not *mine* but that of my bishops.   In the particular case of my own Church, the Russian Church, that position is given here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg397242.html#msg397242


You are trying to take this thread away from its topic - which is the article mentioned in the OP which speaks of the increasing acceptance of birth control in the Catholic Church.

And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 11, 2010, 03:17:06 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.

My position on birth control is not *mine* but that of my bishops.   In the particular case of my own Church, the Russian Church, that position is given here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg397242.html#msg397242


You are trying to take this thread away from its topic - which is the article mentioned in the OP which speaks of the increasing acceptance of birth control in the Catholic Church.

And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?

To them, if the Fathers don't explicitly say it then it isn't true. Kind of reminds one of sola scriptura, doesn't it?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 11, 2010, 03:19:38 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.

My position on birth control is not *mine* but that of my bishops.   In the particular case of my own Church, the Russian Church, that position is given here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg397242.html#msg397242


You are trying to take this thread away from its topic - which is the article mentioned in the OP which speaks of the increasing acceptance of birth control in the Catholic Church.

And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?

To them, if the Fathers don't explicitly say it then it isn't true. Kind of reminds one of sola scriptura, doesn't it?
Very much so.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 11, 2010, 08:31:28 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.

My position on birth control is not *mine* but that of my bishops.   In the particular case of my own Church, the Russian Church, that position is given here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg397242.html#msg397242


You are trying to take this thread away from its topic - which is the article mentioned in the OP which speaks of the increasing acceptance of birth control in the Catholic Church.

And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?

To them, if the Fathers don't explicitly say it then it isn't true. Kind of reminds one of sola scriptura, doesn't it?
Very much so.
If by Fathers you mean St. Jerome, no: the Orthodoxy have never believed, in two thousand years that "all sexual intercourse is unclean," that "the blood of martyrdom does not wash away matrimony," nor "we do not accept intercourse except for reproduction," the last one, of course, where the Vatican penitentiary and Humanae Vitae no longer believer what St. Jerome believed about birth control, as he is explicitely against NFP (so called) as well.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 08:58:59 PM
Birth Control is slowly but surely gaining acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church.  As of yet the latest changes have no sanction from the Vatican but the words of Pope Paul VI in Message 22 allow for the possibility of future change to the teaching in his Encyclical.

Not true.

The contention that change is inexorably underway is the  major point of the article under discussion.   So you probably need to do more than  simply make an unsupported negative assertion.


Yes and by the same token from the dissenters we'll be ordaining women soon too. 

This is the use of a crude scare tactic which I am surpised to see from a person of your education.   :-[

Scare tactic?  To recognize dissenters in the Church?

Ok

It is a scare tactic, and a very transparent one, to pretend that the acceptance of contraception leads to women priests!    I am now even more surprised that you do not perceive the glaring fallacy in your argument.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 09:10:51 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.

My position on birth control is not *mine* but that of my bishops.   In the particular case of my own Church, the Russian Church, that position is given here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg397242.html#msg397242


You are trying to take this thread away from its topic - which is the article mentioned in the OP which speaks of the increasing acceptance of birth control in the Catholic Church.

And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?

We actually do not have enough from the Holy Fathers to form a solid consensus of teaching, but what we do have shows us that the Fathers disapproved of ALL attempts at birth control.  And they would have spat in the eye of the Pope who wrote Humanae Vitae and allowed natural family planning.  What we do have from the Fathers shows us that their teaching was that all sexual activity is grossly sinful unless it is between married couples who have both

1) the intention to conceive

2) the physical possibility to conceive.

Both are Churches have chosen to overrule the Holy Fathers on this matter.   
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 09:12:51 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.

My position on birth control is not *mine* but that of my bishops.   In the particular case of my own Church, the Russian Church, that position is given here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg397242.html#msg397242


You are trying to take this thread away from its topic - which is the article mentioned in the OP which speaks of the increasing acceptance of birth control in the Catholic Church.

And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?

To them, if the Fathers don't explicitly say it then it isn't true. Kind of reminds one of sola scriptura, doesn't it?

If you wish to treat the Holy Fathers as sola scriptura then you'd better throw natural family planning away pronto.

There is not one quote from the Fathers in Paul VI's Humanae Vitae.  Why?  Becase there is not one Father who agrees with his teaching.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: theistgal on September 11, 2010, 09:16:55 PM
Hmm ... so if the EO Church no longer follows the consensus of the Church Fathers on this issue, does that mean it allows for "development of doctrine"? ;)
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 09:21:13 PM

And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?

We actually do not have enough from the Holy Fathers to form a solid consensus of teaching.

The Roman Catholics prove this.

If you go to sites such as CAF and their articles against contraception they will have a small quote mine of quotes from the Fathers.   BUT, when you look at them, you realise that they are not in fact about birth control at all!  Give it a try.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 09:24:25 PM
Hmm ... so if the EO Church no longer follows the consensus of the Church Fathers on this issue, does that mean it allows for "development of doctrine"? ;)

As I have pointed out, there is not in fact a consensus of the Fathers on this point since what we have from them is so sparse.  And to prove this one only has to examine the Roman Catholic sites on contraception and the quotes they offer.

In some matters also, both our Churches have abandoned the teaching of the Fathers - slavery and usury come to mind.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: theistgal on September 11, 2010, 10:11:04 PM
I'm glad about the end of slavery, of course, but with interest rates on credit cards upwards of 29%, maybe we ought to take another look at the prohibitions of usury!! ;D
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 11, 2010, 10:38:56 PM

You aren't even a Catholic, so not sure why you feel like you have a dog in this fight.
Fr. A likes to do everything in his power to try and make the Catolics look bad so he can try and bolster his own weak position on birth control.

My position on birth control is not *mine* but that of my bishops.   In the particular case of my own Church, the Russian Church, that position is given here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg397242.html#msg397242


You are trying to take this thread away from its topic - which is the article mentioned in the OP which speaks of the increasing acceptance of birth control in the Catholic Church.

And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?

We actually do not have enough from the Holy Fathers to form a solid consensus of teaching, but what we do have shows us that the Fathers disapproved of ALL attempts at birth control.  And they would have spat in the eye of the Pope who wrote Humanae Vitae and allowed natural family planning.  What we do have from the Fathers shows us that their teaching was that all sexual activity is grossly sinful unless it is between married couples who have both

1) the intention to conceive

2) the physical possibility to conceive.

Both are Churches have chosen to overrule the Holy Fathers on this matter.   

As you say, Father, I do not think there is much of a consensus to overrule on the matter. What there is doesn't fit well with the marriage rite, except with some things from St. John Chrysostom, and even a few things from St. Augustine (there is a lovely passage where he argues against the idea that the conjugal relation is unclean).  The real problem is that we do not have much from a married father (St. Augustine and even more so St. Gregory of Nyssa. I don't know if anything survives of St. Gregory Nazianzus the Elder). No offense, Father, but most things I have read by monks on married life make me laugh. Most nuns, however, are on the mark on it.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 09:03:32 AM
I was speaking with a Catholic priest earlier this evening.  A Catholic woman needs a dispensation from her bishop to marry in the Orthodox Church.  The inevitable topics came up - what will the children be baptized?  And he enquired about how we see birth control.  I offered him a brief outline. The he spoke of birth control for the couples of his parish.  He says it is probably used by 100% of them  He also said that there is no attempt to hinder them from communion or from being on the parish council, the school Board of Trustees, etc.  I had the distinct impression that Humanae Vitae doesn't exist for him.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 12, 2010, 09:13:58 AM
I suppose that it would be possible for the teaching to be modified somewhat. Of course, the low birthrates in European Catholic (and Orthodox) countries contrasts rather sharply with the high birthrates among Muslims. A Muslim family in our nieghborhood has six young children already, and the wife is expecting another soon.
To me, this is a huge reason why Catholics, Orthodox, and any other Christian groups should not be using contraception. When I was studying to become Catholic in 2006 and in the beginning of 2007, I remember being taught that it was the Church's teaching on the immorality of abortion and contraception that allowed Christianity to flourish so much early on. The Pagans practiced contraception and abortion whereas the Christians tended to have large families and procreate way more, so we quite literally outnumbered them because of our openness to life and our proper understanding of Holy Matrimony.

That's a nice apocryphal story, but old pagan Romans were duty bound to produce lots of children before the birth of Christ and assuredly afterwards.  Those who did not were often seen as not contributing to society.

I hardly think it is a nice apocryphal story whenever a few posts back it was mentioned that we are seeing the exact same thing happen with the growth of Islam. Muslims have more babies, ergo there are more and more Muslims. Was contraception and abortion allowed amongst Pagans or wasn't it? If it was, then it only makes sense that Christianity ended up being dominant since we were out there procreating and not terminating pregnancies.

Yes, contraception WAS available to the pagans because it wasn't a religious issue for them.  Having lots of children was, however, a social issue and one that was far more pressing to the average Roman (pagan) citizen.  Of course, I don't have the numbers in front me, but I would bet my last dollar that the size of your average pagan Roman citizen's family was the same as the size of the average Christian family, citizen or not. 
I was just thinking of the example of the Roman emperors, the pagan ones. It seems that they were constantly having problems producing heirs who lived to maturity, when everything was at stake. One thing was that many were military men (how they got the throne) away from their wives a lot. It seems that once the emperors became Christian, they had the same problems.

On family size, the VERY Christian family of Gregory Nazianzus only had three children.  They are also interesting in that all three evidently, and the last one definitely, were conceived after the father, Gregory the Elder, was consecrated a bishop. Imperfect continence as it were. I've heard it said many times that the "fact" that no children were born after a father's ordination as a basis of disregarding the married popes (starting with St. Jerome on St. Peter), bishops, priests, etc. in the argument over mandated clerical celibacy.  Some try to get around St. Gregory by moving his birth a few years earlier, but his brother Caesarea most definitely born after. Even the "Catholic Encyclopedia" admits the "two sons, who seem to have been born between the dates of their father's priestly ordination and episcopal consecration." Even enough to bring to nought the "perfect continence" argument. What I haven't seen on that score, btw, is an explanation on how they allow deacons to have normal relations with their wives.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 12, 2010, 10:15:06 AM
Hmm ... so if the EO Church no longer follows the consensus of the Church Fathers on this issue, does that mean it allows for "development of doctrine"? ;)

As I have pointed out, there is not in fact a consensus of the Fathers on this point since what we have from them is so sparse.  And to prove this one only has to examine the Roman Catholic sites on contraception and the quotes they offer.

In some matters also, both our Churches have abandoned the teaching of the Fathers - slavery and usury come to mind.

What is really sparse are fathers who affirm the unitive aspect of marriage.  There is a great deal in fact on the procreative aspect of marriage and the evils of any anti-procreative activity.

Mary
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 12, 2010, 10:15:34 AM
 :laugh:  How wonderfully predictable.



And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?

We actually do not have enough from the Holy Fathers to form a solid consensus of teaching.

The Roman Catholics prove this.

If you go to sites such as CAF and their articles against contraception they will have a small quote mine of quotes from the Fathers.   BUT, when you look at them, you realise that they are not in fact about birth control at all!  Give it a try.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 12, 2010, 11:17:57 AM
I was speaking with a Catholic priest earlier this evening.  A Catholic woman needs a dispensation from her bishop to marry in the Orthodox Church.  The inevitable topics came up - what will the children be baptized?  And he enquired about how we see birth control.  I offered him a brief outline. The he spoke of birth control for the couples of his parish.  He says it is probably used by 100% of them  He also said that there is no attempt to hinder them from communion or from being on the parish council, the school Board of Trustees, etc.  I had the distinct impression that Humanae Vitae doesn't exist for him.

That is a real shame. While it is difficult to determine whether everyone in the congregation is worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist, if nothing else if the priest suspects that many in his congregation are ignorant of the Catholic teaching on contraception he has a moral obligation to preach on it. The lukewarmness of some (or even many) doesn't negate the teaching.

:laugh:  How wonderfully predictable.



And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?

We actually do not have enough from the Holy Fathers to form a solid consensus of teaching.

The Roman Catholics prove this.

If you go to sites such as CAF and their articles against contraception they will have a small quote mine of quotes from the Fathers.   BUT, when you look at them, you realise that they are not in fact about birth control at all!  Give it a try.

I find it funny that when the Catholic Church teaches something not explicitly taught by the Fathers that we are heretical, but it is completely acceptable for the Orthodox to do so apparently (as in the case of birth control). I am curious about something. Whenever there is not a clear consensus on a teaching by the Fathers, how does an Orthodox Christian know what to believe? As a Catholic, it is easy for me because I look to the teaching authority of my Church, the Magisterium. Orthodoxy has no Magisterium, however, so how are issues like this dealt with in Orthodoxy? Is everyone just allowed to have their own opinion on it if there isn't patristic consensus?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 11:39:42 AM
What is really sparse are fathers who affirm the unitive aspect of marriage.  There is a great deal in fact on the procreative aspect of marriage and the evils of any anti-procreative activity.[/size


The Holy Fathers whose thoughts we have hold this teaching unanimously, that sex without the intent to conceive and the possibility to conceive is gravely sinful.

But amongst them there is one dissenting voice, that of Saint John Chrysostom:

"There are two reasons for which marriage was instituted...to bring man to contentment with one woman and to have children, but it is the first reason that is the most important. As for procreation, it is not required absolutely by marriage...The proof of this lies in the numerous marriages that cannot have children. This is why the first reason of marriage is to order sexual life, especially now that the human race has filled the entire earth."

Now the odd thing is that if we adhere to the Catholic logic being advanced in this thread we would have to discount what Saint John Chrysostom says because he is contrary to the consensus teaching.


Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 11:40:36 AM
And how absolutely true!


:laugh:  How wonderfully predictable.



And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?

We actually do not have enough from the Holy Fathers to form a solid consensus of teaching.

The Roman Catholics prove this.

If you go to sites such as CAF and their articles against contraception they will have a small quote mine of quotes from the Fathers.   BUT, when you look at them, you realise that they are not in fact about birth control at all!  Give it a try.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 11:43:40 AM
I was speaking with a Catholic priest earlier this evening.  A Catholic woman needs a dispensation from her bishop to marry in the Orthodox Church.  The inevitable topics came up - what will the children be baptized?  And he enquired about how we see birth control.  I offered him a brief outline. The he spoke of birth control for the couples of his parish.  He says it is probably used by 100% of them  He also said that there is no attempt to hinder them from communion or from being on the parish council, the school Board of Trustees, etc.  I had the distinct impression that Humanae Vitae doesn't exist for him.

That is a real shame. While it is difficult to determine whether everyone in the congregation is worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist, if nothing else if the priest suspects that many in his congregation are ignorant of the Catholic teaching on contraception he has a moral obligation to preach on it. The lukewarmness of some (or even many) doesn't negate the teaching.


I do not know the level of education in your part of the world, but in this country it is not a matter of being ignorant of the Vatican teaching.  It is a matter of rejectng it.  The rejection is allowed by Catholic priests.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 12, 2010, 12:05:41 PM
What is really sparse are fathers who affirm the unitive aspect of marriage.  There is a great deal in fact on the procreative aspect of marriage and the evils of any anti-procreative activity.[/size


The Holy Fathers whose thoughts we have hold this teaching unanimously, that sex without the intent to conceive and the possibility to conceive is gravely sinful.

But amongst them there is one dissenting voice, that of Saint John Chrysostom:

"There are two reasons for which marriage was instituted...to bring man to contentment with one woman and to have children, but it is the first reason that is the most important. As for procreation, it is not required absolutely by marriage...The proof of this lies in the numerous marriages that cannot have children. This is why the first reason of marriage is to order sexual life, especially now that the human race has filled the entire earth."

Now the odd thing is that if we adhere to the Catholic logic being advanced in this thread we would have to discount what Saint John Chrysostom says because he is contrary to the consensus teaching.

Oh my.  That doesn't hold at all Father.

But the preponderance of evidence from the patristic era still places the greater emphasis on childbearing and child rearing and openness to life.

Any Catholic who uses NFP to absolutely close off the opportunity for life is in a sinful state.

The difference between condoms and NFP is the fact that the stricture is against having intercourse UNLESS one is open to life. 

With condoms there is intercourse that is closed to life.

With NFP there is no intercourse for a time, and the couple is counseled to not use this method to do anything but space their children.  It is sinful to use this method to rule out children totally.

Now as I have mentioned to you before, an odd little twist to this is the fact that there is NO teaching in the fathers that rules out voluntary continence. 

In other words there is no consensus in the fathers that insists on conjugal sex on demand, whenever and wherever....

So NFP does satisfy the patristic witness and adds a level of discipline to a marriage that is the other side of chastity which is continence.

Artificial Birth Control has no positive value in spiritual terms, caters to sex on demand, and does not satisfy the intents and interests of the patristic witness concerning the spiritual and physical health of a Christian family.

I don't really care how you choose to cut this cake.  I think Orthodoxy lost some very important moral ground by making artificial birth control a formal moral option.  Had Orthodox hierarchs left artificial methods as a pastoral option then I expect we'd not be having this discussion at all.

My guess is that it is one of the fruits of your membership in the WCC and catering to secular pressures, and perhaps even an attempt to look less Catholic [of the Roman sort].   After all the response to Humanae Vitae was pretty scary!!

Mary
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ICXCNIKA on September 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
I found this article interesting http://www.national-coalition.org/marriage/contrace.html
 
Just a few excerpts:

 "According to the Gallup Poll, the majority of Catholics disregard the Church’s traditional teaching against contraception. On September 11, 1968, less than six weeks after Pope Paul VI had issued his encyclical Humanae vitae , the poll asked those who heard or read about Pope Paul’s statement, “Do you favor or oppose his position on this matter?” Fifty-four percent of the Catholics surveyed said they opposed the Pope’s position. Moreover, 65 percent of the Catholics who were asked “Do you think it is possible to practice artificial methods of birth control and still be a good Catholic” said yes.

In another poll taken on August 11, 1993, 82 percent of Catholics said one can use artificial birth control “and still be a good Catholic.” The statement that these dissenters opposed is this: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the Natural Law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches as absolutely required that in any use whatever of marriage there must be no impairment of its natural capacity to procreate human life.

In the July 16 issue of America Magazine Fr. Andrew Greely reported the results of two studies, which reveal among other things that most American priests do not support Humanae vitae. One study, which was conducted for the National Federation of Priest Councils by the Life Cycle Institute of Catholic University of America, was based on 1,186 respondents. The other, which was conducted by the Los Angeles Times, was based on 2,061 respondents. Only 25 percent of these priests disapproved of contraception.

Anyone who claims to be a Catholic but rejects the Church’s teaching can justly be compared to Judas."

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 12, 2010, 03:45:26 PM
Hmm ... so if the EO Church no longer follows the consensus of the Church Fathers on this issue, does that mean it allows for "development of doctrine"? ;)

As I have pointed out, there is not in fact a consensus of the Fathers on this point since what we have from them is so sparse.  And to prove this one only has to examine the Roman Catholic sites on contraception and the quotes they offer.

In some matters also, both our Churches have abandoned the teaching of the Fathers - slavery and usury come to mind.

What is really sparse are fathers who affirm the unitive aspect of marriage.

Most of them daring to speak not being married, are you suprised? There's plenty in the marriage rite.

Quote
  There is a great deal in fact on the procreative aspect of marriage and the evils of any anti-procreative activity.
Like Humanae Vitae's NFP.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 12, 2010, 04:49:30 PM
The Holy Fathers whose thoughts we have hold this teaching unanimously, that sex without the intent to conceive and the possibility to conceive is gravely sinful.
But what about the case of a woman who because of some unforeseen medical issue was rendered sterile and unable to have children. Then she does not have the possibility to conceive. So it seems unfair to condemn this unfortunate  lady and her husband  to hell if she agrees to have relations with her husband without the possibility or intention to conceive. It is not her fault that she has this condition.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 12, 2010, 04:50:54 PM
What is really sparse are fathers who affirm the unitive aspect of marriage.  There is a great deal in fact on the procreative aspect of marriage and the evils of any anti-procreative activity.[/size


The Holy Fathers whose thoughts we have hold this teaching unanimously, that sex without the intent to conceive and the possibility to conceive is gravely sinful.

But amongst them there is one dissenting voice, that of Saint John Chrysostom:

"There are two reasons for which marriage was instituted...to bring man to contentment with one woman and to have children, but it is the first reason that is the most important. As for procreation, it is not required absolutely by marriage...The proof of this lies in the numerous marriages that cannot have children. This is why the first reason of marriage is to order sexual life, especially now that the human race has filled the entire earth."

Now the odd thing is that if we adhere to the Catholic logic being advanced in this thread we would have to discount what Saint John Chrysostom says because he is contrary to the consensus teaching.

Oh my.  That doesn't hold at all Father.

But the preponderance of evidence from the patristic era still places the greater emphasis on childbearing and child rearing and openness to life.
When your patristics aren't expressing their horror at the "uncleanness" of intercourse.
Any Catholic who uses NFP to absolutely close off the opportunity for life is in a sinful state.
Not to mention accomplishing a medical impossibilty.

The difference between condoms and NFP is the fact that the stricture is against having intercourse UNLESS one is open to life. 

With condoms there is intercourse that is closed to life.[/quote]
Condoms allow around four times the opening to life than NFP.

With NFP there is no intercourse for a time, and the couple is counseled to not use this method to do anything but space their children.  It is sinful to use this method to rule out children totally.
how about if only one partner rules out children. That's not totally, so they are both OK?

And since you are "wasting seed," as your patristics would say, how is that OK? Wasting seed sometimes, say 100 to every one time to procreate, violates Humanae Vitae:
Quote
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it —in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Now as I have mentioned to you before, an odd little twist to this is the fact that there is NO teaching in the fathers that rules out voluntary continence.
 
You mean running off to the monastery or taking a vow of celibacy. No, there are plenty of your patristics counseling just that.  St. Paul and scripture say otherwise. I Corinthians 7:17, 20, 24, 25, 27.

In other words there is no consensus in the fathers that insists on conjugal sex on demand, whenever and wherever....
Consensus? Depends on how you define the term. St Jerome talks a all about discharging the 'marital debt' (how romantic!), and having to "give in" to the husband's advances (because good girls evidently never want it).

So NFP does satisfy the patristic witness and adds a level of discipline to a marriage that is the other side of chastity which is continence.

A hybrid of recent vintage. Your patristics approve of husband and wife living like brother and sister, but NFP would, based on their words, horrify them.

Artificial Birth Control has no positive value in spiritual terms, caters to sex on demand, and does not satisfy the intents and interests of the patristic witness concerning the spiritual and physical health of a Christian family.
So pregnancy is a punishment designed to thwart sex on demand.

I don't really care how you choose to cut this cake.  I think Orthodoxy lost some very important moral ground by making artificial birth control a formal moral option.  Had Orthodox hierarchs left artificial methods as a pastoral option then I expect we'd not be having this discussion at all.
I seem to have missed the synod which mandated birth control of any sort.  Leaving a pastoral option is how come there is little patristics on the subject.

My guess is that it is one of the fruits of your membership in the WCC and catering to secular pressures, and perhaps even an attempt to look less Catholic [of the Roman sort].   After all the response to Humanae Vitae was pretty scary!!
Yes, we worry of nothing else 24/7 day and night year round than not "looking Roman."
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 12, 2010, 05:01:14 PM
The Holy Fathers whose thoughts we have hold this teaching unanimously, that sex without the intent to conceive and the possibility to conceive is gravely sinful.
But what about the case of a woman who because of some unforeseen medical issue was rendered sterile and unable to have children. Then she does not have the possibility to conceive. So it seems unfair to condemn this unfortunate  lady and her husband  to hell if she agrees to have relations with her husband without the possibility or intention to conceive. It is not her fault that she has this condition.
The Orthodox bishops, Father, our patristic guidance and myself would agree.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 12, 2010, 05:12:27 PM
I was speaking with a Catholic priest earlier this evening.  A Catholic woman needs a dispensation from her bishop to marry in the Orthodox Church.  The inevitable topics came up - what will the children be baptized?  And he enquired about how we see birth control.  I offered him a brief outline. The he spoke of birth control for the couples of his parish.  He says it is probably used by 100% of them  He also said that there is no attempt to hinder them from communion or from being on the parish council, the school Board of Trustees, etc.  I had the distinct impression that Humanae Vitae doesn't exist for him.

That is a real shame. While it is difficult to determine whether everyone in the congregation is worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist, if nothing else if the priest suspects that many in his congregation are ignorant of the Catholic teaching on contraception he has a moral obligation to preach on it. The lukewarmness of some (or even many) doesn't negate the teaching.

I was actually glad when pope John Paul II of Rome stuck to his guns and commemorated the anniversary.

:laugh:  How wonderfully predictable.



And it is a weak position. Fr, do you acknowledge that the EO Church no longer believes what the Fathers believed about birth control?

We actually do not have enough from the Holy Fathers to form a solid consensus of teaching.

The Roman Catholics prove this.

If you go to sites such as CAF and their articles against contraception they will have a small quote mine of quotes from the Fathers.   BUT, when you look at them, you realise that they are not in fact about birth control at all!  Give it a try.

I find it funny that when the Catholic Church teaches something not explicitly taught by the Fathers that we are heretical,

No, just when you teach something that explicitly contradicts when the Fathers taught.

but it is completely acceptable for the Orthodox to do so apparently (as in the case of birth control).
You mean we keep the Fathers' reticence on the issue?

I am curious about something. Whenever there is not a clear consensus on a teaching by the Fathers, how does an Orthodox Christian know what to believe? As a Catholic, it is easy for me because I look to the teaching authority of my Church, the Magisterium.

And how's that working for you?  A majority of the bishops, we are told, opposed the contraceptive scheme of Humanae Vitae. Well, they don't count, because the pope issued Humanae Vitae. So you are admitting that the pope=magisterium?  Otherwise, can't see your point.

Orthodoxy has no Magisterium,

Being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, she doesn't need one.

however, so how are issues like this dealt with in Orthodoxy? Is everyone just allowed to have their own opinion on it if there isn't patristic consensus?
Since we haven't lost the Fathers' mind, that isn't a problem for us.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 12, 2010, 06:24:07 PM
Continence in marriage does not constitute "running off to join a monastery." 

An interesting point of view for anyone to take...very revealing.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 12, 2010, 06:35:48 PM
I was actually glad when pope John Paul II of Rome stuck to his guns and commemorated the anniversary.

Commemorated the anniversary of Humanae Vitae? Why would you be glad about that if you don't agree with the encyclical?

No, just when you teach something that explicitly contradicts when the Fathers taught.

But does it really contradict? St. Paul talks about abstaining from marital relations at times, doesn't he? That's what NFP involves as well: abstaining.

And how's that working for you?  A majority of the bishops, we are told, opposed the contraceptive scheme of Humanae Vitae. Well, they don't count, because the pope issued Humanae Vitae. So you are admitting that the pope=magisterium?  Otherwise, can't see your point.

It's working out great. Never been happier. It sure beats all of the Protestant confusion I came from. If the Magisterium of the Church was truly against Humanae Vitae, we would be hearing about the Catholic Church holding a council to overturn it, but that didn't happen and still hasn't happened. Once again, just a reminder, Magisterium equals the Pope and all of the Bishops, so "a majority of the bishops" opposing Humanae Vitae doesn't equate to the Magisterium denying it.

Being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, she doesn't need one.

Correction: The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has one. ;)

Since we haven't lost the Fathers' mind, that isn't a problem for us.

It seems that Orthodoxy no longer thinks with the mind of the Fathers. The Fathers wanted no form of contraception and for sex to be only for procreation, right? Well, Orthodoxy allows NFP and artificial contraception, correct? The Catholic Church allows only NFP and then only if the couples are using it while also being open to life. What does this mean? It means that a couple cannot use NFP with the intent to never have children. Contraception is not just a pill or a condom, contraception is also a mindset and an attitude, which is why NFP even has the potential to be sinful. When couples put their own wills and plans above God's will, that is where trouble comes in.

Now, neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church's stance on contraception look exactly like the Early Church Fathers, but ours seems to be closer since we didn't just throw in the towel and allow artificial contraception too, and only allow NFP with restrictions. What is someone irritating is that many Orthodox claim that have had no development, but the current stance on contraception amongst Eastern Orthodoxy certainly seems like a development if not a downright innovation. At least we admit that we develop.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 12, 2010, 06:43:44 PM
Continence in marriage does not constitute "running off to join a monastery." 

An interesting point of view for anyone to take...very revealing.
of me....or you?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 06:47:11 PM
The Holy Fathers whose thoughts we have hold this teaching unanimously, that sex without the intent to conceive and the possibility to conceive is gravely sinful.
But what about the case of a woman who because of some unforeseen medical issue was rendered sterile and unable to have children. Then she does not have the possibility to conceive. So it seems unfair to condemn this unfortunate  lady and her husband  to hell if she agrees to have relations with her husband without the possibility or intention to conceive. It is not her fault that she has this condition.

Don't blame me!  ;)  What you have described it the teaching of the early Church Fathers. (Not sure about the hell part though.)  I keep saying that both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have laid aside this aspect of their teaching, but Catholics are a bit frightened to look that fact in the face!

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 12, 2010, 07:59:24 PM
I was actually glad when pope John Paul II of Rome stuck to his guns and commemorated the anniversary.

Commemorated the anniversary of Humanae Vitae? Why would you be glad about that if you don't agree with the encyclical?
Doesn't affect me any, It infuriated the secularists, which is a good thing.

No, just when you teach something that explicitly contradicts when the Fathers taught.

But does it really contradict? St. Paul talks about abstaining from marital relations at times, doesn't he? That's what NFP involves as well: abstaining.

Working also involves abstaining. St. Paul wasn't taking about that either.

And how's that working for you?  A majority of the bishops, we are told, opposed the contraceptive scheme of Humanae Vitae. Well, they don't count, because the pope issued Humanae Vitae. So you are admitting that the pope=magisterium?  Otherwise, can't see your point.

It's working out great. Never been happier. It sure beats all of the Protestant confusion I came from.
LOL. That doesn't say much.

If the Magisterium of the Church was truly against Humanae Vitae, we would be hearing about the Catholic Church holding a council to overturn it, but that didn't happen and still hasn't happened.

So we can assume it's infallible. That's not what Pastor Aeternus says, nor Vatican apologists when we ask on that point.

Once again, just a reminder, Magisterium equals the Pope and all of the Bishops,
Once I heard a priest say from the pulpit on EWTN that in the seminary they told them that the "pope has 51% of the Church's infallibilty."

so "a majority of the bishops" opposing Humanae Vitae doesn't equate to the Magisterium denying it.

No, just underlining the only vote that counts.

Being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, she doesn't need one.
Correction: The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has one. ;)

You mean the one who took the uncanonical decision of a local council, and at the emperor's command abandoned its apostolic roots and presumed to impose it on the Catholic Church, causing schism?

Since we haven't lost the Fathers' mind, that isn't a problem for us.
It seems that Orthodoxy no longer thinks with the mind of the Fathers. The Fathers wanted no form of contraception and for sex to be only for procreation, right?
Wrong.
Before getting into that, I'll just reiterate the absurdity of characerizing Orthodoxy on contraception. It would be more justified to characterize the Vatican on its mandated clerical celibacy But that doesn't come up to the top of our list of grivences.

Your Fathers you cite do not say contraception, at least no definition which would distinguish ABC from NFP (so called).

Well, Orthodoxy allows NFP and artificial contraception, correct?
NFP yes, artificial contraception, depends what you mean by the term.

The Catholic Church allows only NFP and then only if the couples are using it while also being open to life.
your patristic sources do not allow NFP, and would see it (and strictly speaking HV contradicts itself on this) like living together while also being open to marriage.

What does this mean? It means that a couple cannot use NFP with the intent to never have children. Contraception is not just a pill or a condom, contraception is also a mindset and an attitude, which is why NFP even has the potential to be sinful. When couples put their own wills and plans above God's will, that is where trouble comes in.
So really, there is no difference between NFP and coitus interruptus, the latter being, based on success/failure rate, more open to life and with the same intent.

Now, neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church's stance on contraception look exactly like the Early Church Fathers, but ours seems to be closer since we didn't just throw in the towel and allow artificial contraception too,
No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.

and only allow NFP with restrictions. What is someone irritating is that many Orthodox claim that have had no development, but the current stance on contraception amongst Eastern Orthodoxy certainly seems like a development if not a downright innovation.
Only if you wish to see it that way.

At least we admit that we develop.
not in this you don't: I've seen no admission that HV is an innovation.

Speaking of innovation, something that rarely it seems gets brought up is the advances in scientific knowledge. Not contraception-whether the ancient methods worked as the ancients thought has no bearing on intention-but in what is really involved in conception.  Many, like St. Clement, seem to make it clear that he held to the humunculus theory, that semen has a "little human" in it, like an embryo. Spilling seed would act like an abortifacient preventing implantation. Since we now know that such is not the case, we cannot proceed in ignorance on it.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 12, 2010, 10:20:35 PM

It seems that Orthodoxy no longer thinks with the mind of the Fathers. The Fathers wanted no form of contraception and for sex to be only for procreation, right? Well, Orthodoxy allows NFP and artificial contraception, correct? The Catholic Church allows only NFP and then only if the couples are using it while also being open to life. What does this mean? It means that a couple cannot use NFP with the intent to never have children. Contraception is not just a pill or a condom, contraception is also a mindset and an attitude, which is why NFP even has the potential to be sinful. When couples put their own wills and plans above God's will, that is where trouble comes in.
I think we, as Catholics,  have to be fair on what the Orthodox position is on contraception.  An E.  Orthodox priest told me that it would be a sin for a married couple to use contraception with the intent to never have children. He said that generally speaking, they would be allowed to use it after having two or three children. So in a sense, according to what I was told by this priest,  the Orthodox couple still has to be open to life, at least to the extent of having two or three children, which is not too much different from the RC position on using NFP, is it?
Now as far as the RC teaching on artificial birth control, why do we not hear more about it from the pulpit? It seems like there should be an open discussion as to what is and what is not required from all married Catholic couples in this regard, and concerning the seriousness of this sin.   
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 12, 2010, 11:39:51 PM
Doesn't affect me any, It infuriated the secularists, which is a good thing.

I get the feeling you like infuriating people, or at least trying to.

Working also involves abstaining. St. Paul wasn't taking about that either.

He was talking about abstaining from sexual relations for a time, and that is exactly what is involved in NFP.


LOL. That doesn't say much.

Did you ever tell me what your faith was prior to becoming Orthodox? If you did I missed it.

Once I heard a priest say from the pulpit on EWTN that in the seminary they told them that the "pope has 51% of the Church's infallibilty."

I'm not quite sure where they're getting that figure. The Pope has the authority to teach infallibly due to his Petrine Office, and the Magisterium of the Church has the authority to teach infallibly since we know from Scripture that the Church has the authority to "bind and loose." Not sure where these percentages are coming from.

No, just underlining the only vote that counts.

The Church's.

You mean the one who took the uncanonical decision of a local council, and at the emperor's command abandoned its apostolic roots and presumed to impose it on the Catholic Church, causing schism?

That's not how I remember it (because I was there, of course :P ). I do remember a bunch of Eastern Bishops rebelling against Blessed St. Peter and his See and breaking away and forming their own church. See...I can polemical and uncharitable too, but where does it get us?

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

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

not in this you don't: I've seen no admission that HV is an innovation.

Development.

Speaking of innovation, something that rarely it seems gets brought up is the advances in scientific knowledge. Not contraception-whether the ancient methods worked as the ancients thought has no bearing on intention-but in what is really involved in conception.  Many, like St. Clement, seem to make it clear that he held to the humunculus theory, that semen has a "little human" in it, like an embryo. Spilling seed would act like an abortifacient preventing implantation. Since we now know that such is not the case, we cannot proceed in ignorance on it.

And I don't hear anyone in the Catholic Church making the claim that semen has little humans in it, so what's your point?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 11:48:04 PM

The Pope has the authority to teach infallibly due to his Petrine Office, and the Magisterium of the Church has the authority to teach infallibly

I'd love to see that last phrase substantiated!   Has there been an addendum to Pastor Aeternus infallibilising the bishops?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 11:54:59 PM

That's not how I remember it (because I was there, of course :P ). I do remember a bunch of Eastern Bishops rebelling against Blessed St. Peter and his See and breaking away and forming their own church.

At the time of the Schism it was not a "bunch of Easten bishops rebelling."  It was in fact the majority of the bishops of the Catholic Church.  At that time in history the Catholics of the East outnumbered those of the West.

Rome, a minority Church, removed itself from communion with the majority Church and utlised the schism to pursue its own delusions of grandeur unhampered.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 12:03:59 AM
Doesn't affect me any, It infuriated the secularists, which is a good thing.

I get the feeling you like infuriating people, or at least trying to.
:o

Working also involves abstaining. St. Paul wasn't taking about that either.
He was talking about abstaining from sexual relations for a time, and that is exactly what is involved in NFP.
Working also involves abstaining from sexual relations for a time, and St. Paul wasn't taking about that either.

LOL. That doesn't say much.
Did you ever tell me what your faith was prior to becoming Orthodox? If you did I missed it.
You asked? I must have missed it. "Evangelical Lutheran."

Once I heard a priest say from the pulpit on EWTN that in the seminary they told them that the "pope has 51% of the Church's infallibilty."
I'm not quite sure where they're getting that figure. The Pope has the authority to teach infallibly due to his Petrine Office, and the Magisterium of the Church has the authority to teach infallibly since we know from Scripture that the Church has the authority to "bind and loose." Not sure where these percentages are coming from.
Just reporting. As for the "Magisterium of the church" that in essence means the same as the pope, because the bishops seperate from him cannot speak infallibly. Which of course makes them all auxiliary bishops.

No, just underlining the only vote that counts.
The Church's.
Le pape dit: L'église? c'est moi! The pope says: the church? I am the church.

You mean the one who took the uncanonical decision of a local council, and at the emperor's command abandoned its apostolic roots and presumed to impose it on the Catholic Church, causing schism?
That's not how I remember it (because I was there, of course :P ). I do remember a bunch of Eastern Bishops rebelling against Blessed St. Peter and his See and breaking away and forming their own church.
381, at Constantinople. Reiterated the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church.

See...I can polemical and uncharitable too, but where does it get us?
Honest talk.

No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.
Our distinction between NFP and artificial contraception is hardly "artificial." Using the natural fertility cycle of a woman to space pregnancies is hardly the same as throwing some latex between a husband and wife or taking a pill.
Or withdrawing a....: he has to eventually.  And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."

not in this you don't: I've seen no admission that HV is an innovation.
Development.
The pill is a development. HV is an innovation, at least according to those it would have as authorities.

Speaking of innovation, something that rarely it seems gets brought up is the advances in scientific knowledge. Not contraception-whether the ancient methods worked as the ancients thought has no bearing on intention-but in what is really involved in conception.  Many, like St. Clement, seem to make it clear that he held to the humunculus theory, that semen has a "little human" in it, like an embryo. Spilling seed would act like an abortifacient preventing implantation. Since we now know that such is not the case, we cannot proceed in ignorance on it.
And I don't hear anyone in the Catholic Church making the claim that semen has little humans in it, so what's your point?
Your patristic authorities did.  Since your argument hinges so much on "natural law" (the HV argues from no other basis), it is subject to what the knowledge of nature is.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 13, 2010, 12:42:42 AM
The Holy Fathers whose thoughts we have hold this teaching unanimously, that sex without the intent to conceive and the possibility to conceive is gravely sinful.
But what about the case of a woman who because of some unforeseen medical issue was rendered sterile and unable to have children. Then she does not have the possibility to conceive. So it seems unfair to condemn this unfortunate  lady and her husband  to hell if she agrees to have relations with her husband without the possibility or intention to conceive. It is not her fault that she has this condition.

Don't blame me!  ;)  What you have described it the teaching of the early Church Fathers. (Not sure about the hell part though.)  I keep saying that both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have laid aside this aspect of their teaching, but Catholics are a bit frightened to look that fact in the face!


The real issue is the tussle between continence and condoms.

Continence is FAR more unpopular than condoms, for many.

From where I sit Orthodoxy saw the handwriting on the wall and ducked.

Seems simple enough to me to fix.  Get on off the Condom Train and get over it.

The reality, and the liberal Catholics hate it too so you are not alone, is the fact that many more young people want the discipline of continence than the license of condoms.  Think of all those failed dissenters...too old and stogy now to do something REALLY spiritually daring...

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 13, 2010, 12:44:12 AM

That's not how I remember it (because I was there, of course :P ). I do remember a bunch of Eastern Bishops rebelling against Blessed St. Peter and his See and breaking away and forming their own church.

At the time of the Schism it was not a "bunch of Easten bishops rebelling."  It was in fact the majority of the bishops of the Catholic Church.  At that time in history the Catholics of the East outnumbered those of the West.

Rome, a minority Church, removed itself from communion with the majority Church and utlised the schism to pursue its own delusions of grandeur unhampered.

This is not good.
According to the sad chart you have shown us, the number of Orthodox faithful has declined dramatically over the centuries. Why not put a little more effort into proselyletising non-Catholics for Orthodoxy? Also, why not join Catholics and others in our pro-life marches. (Which I am sure that you have already, but take a look at the miserable abortion statistics in some Orthodox countries.)
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 13, 2010, 12:51:19 AM
The Holy Fathers whose thoughts we have hold this teaching unanimously, that sex without the intent to conceive and the possibility to conceive is gravely sinful.
But what about the case of a woman who because of some unforeseen medical issue was rendered sterile and unable to have children. Then she does not have the possibility to conceive. So it seems unfair to condemn this unfortunate  lady and her husband  to hell if she agrees to have relations with her husband without the possibility or intention to conceive. It is not her fault that she has this condition.

Don't blame me!  ;)  What you have described it the teaching of the early Church Fathers. (Not sure about the hell part though.)  I keep saying that both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have laid aside this aspect of their teaching, but Catholics are a bit frightened to look that fact in the face!


Right. No, I did not mean to blame you, Father Ambrose, so I apologize if it sounded that way.
But it brings up a point which is sometimes confusing for Catholics trying to understand the Orthodox teaching on Holy Tradition. Who has the authority to decide what to reject and what to accept as far as what is taught by the Holy Fathers.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 02:38:55 AM

According to the sad chart you have shown us, the number of Orthodox faithful has declined dramatically over the centuries.

.... Orthodoxy has been constrained by two mighty enemies on either side, Roman Catholics to the West and Muslims to the East.

Non timebo milia populi circumdantis me. (Psalm 3)

Quote
but take a look at the miserable abortion statistics in some Orthodox countries

Did you see the birth rate statistics I supplied yesterday from the CIA Factbooks, for 2008?   Despite popular perception, the figures show that the birth rates in the Eastern Orthodox countries are higher than those in Catholic Western European countries.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 02:52:17 AM
The Holy Fathers whose thoughts we have hold this teaching unanimously, that sex without the intent to conceive and the possibility to conceive is gravely sinful.
But what about the case of a woman who because of some unforeseen medical issue was rendered sterile and unable to have children. Then she does not have the possibility to conceive. So it seems unfair to condemn this unfortunate  lady and her husband  to hell if she agrees to have relations with her husband without the possibility or intention to conceive. It is not her fault that she has this condition.

Don't blame me!  ;)  What you have described it the teaching of the early Church Fathers. (Not sure about the hell part though.)  I keep saying that both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have laid aside this aspect of their teaching, but Catholics are a bit frightened to look that fact in the face!


The real issue is the tussle between continence and condoms.

Continence is FAR more unpopular than condoms, for many.
LOL. You might be suprised how unpopulaar condoms are.

Quote
From where I sit Orthodoxy saw the handwriting on the wall and ducked.
From where you sit? Luther at least stood.

Quote
Seems simple enough to me to fix.  Get on off the Condom Train and get over it.

Yes, most want the pill anyway. The men at least.

Quote
The reality, and the liberal Catholics hate it too so you are not alone, is the fact that many more young people want the discipline of continence than the license of condoms.  Think of all those failed dissenters...too old and stogy now to do something REALLY spiritually daring...
Well, if the yuggin's are too continent, there'll be nobody around.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 02:58:21 AM

The real issue is the tussle between continence and condoms.

Continence is FAR more unpopular than condoms, for many.

From where I sit Orthodoxy saw the handwriting on the wall and ducked.

Seems simple enough to me to fix.  Get on off the Condom Train and get over it.

You know, the Orthodox are not in fact trying to force the Catholics to use condoms.

You have to wonder why the Catholics are so determined to force their ways on us.

It makes you think twice about any union.... we'll be badgered to death and made to conform to Roman Catholic ways.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 13, 2010, 10:31:04 AM

The real issue is the tussle between continence and condoms.

Continence is FAR more unpopular than condoms, for many.

From where I sit Orthodoxy saw the handwriting on the wall and ducked.

Seems simple enough to me to fix.  Get on off the Condom Train and get over it.

You know, the Orthodox are not in fact trying to force the Catholics to use condoms.

You have to wonder why the Catholics are so determined to force their ways on us.

It makes you think twice about any union.... we'll be badgered to death and made to conform to Roman Catholic ways.

Couple realities to counter this scare tactic:

1.  The only confession whose members, clergy and laity, who INSIST that ANYONE change in fundamentally major ways is Orthodoxy's demands that the Catholic Church dump a thousand years of teaching and understanding revealed truth.

2.  Orthodox hierarchs are well aware that IF the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy are going to put a united face on for the world in terms of moral issues then the moral issue of artificial birth control is going to be front and center, and Orthodoxy will have to at least change the precepts and make ALL artificial birth control, for males and females an exception rather than the rule.

3.  In the SAME vein as no. 2 above, there will have to be clear indications that BOTH confessions are making strong efforts to teach abstenence, chastity and continence to you youth and young adults in the faith!!

4.  No. 3 above is ALREADY happening among some Orthodox shepherds and their flock, as it happens in the Catholic Church...and nobody is dying from the shock.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

You fellows will find your liberal talk and attitudes will be shunned voluntarily by the faithful remnant.  In fact, it already is being ignored.

Mary
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 13, 2010, 10:54:08 AM
It makes you think twice about any union.... we'll be badgered to death and made to conform to Roman Catholic ways.

That is funny that you say that. A friend of mine who was recently received into the Orthodox Church said that the only way that our two Churches could reunite would essentially be if the Pope became Orthodox and all of us followed him. That sure doesn't sound like a willingness to have dialogue or try and work out differences; it sounds more like "convert or perish."
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 11:07:57 AM
It makes you think twice about any union.... we'll be badgered to death and made to conform to Roman Catholic ways.

That is funny that you say that. A friend of mine who was recently received into the Orthodox Church said that the only way that our two Churches could reunite would essentially be if the Pope became Orthodox and all of us followed him. That sure doesn't sound like a willingness to have dialogue or try and work out differences;

we don't work out heresies.

Quote
it sounds more like "convert or perish."
Indeed.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 11:12:49 AM

The real issue is the tussle between continence and condoms.

Continence is FAR more unpopular than condoms, for many.

From where I sit Orthodoxy saw the handwriting on the wall and ducked.

Seems simple enough to me to fix.  Get on off the Condom Train and get over it.

You know, the Orthodox are not in fact trying to force the Catholics to use condoms.

You have to wonder why the Catholics are so determined to force their ways on us.

It makes you think twice about any union.... we'll be badgered to death and made to conform to Roman Catholic ways.

Couple realities to counter this scare tactic:

1.  The only confession whose members, clergy and laity, who INSIST that ANYONE change in fundamentally major ways is Orthodoxy's demands that the Catholic Church dump a thousand years of teaching and understanding revealed truth.

2.  Orthodox hierarchs are well aware that IF the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy are going to put a united face on for the world in terms of moral issues then the moral issue of artificial birth control is going to be front and center, and Orthodoxy will have to at least change the precepts and make ALL artificial birth control, for males and females an exception rather than the rule.

"Artificial" birth control is a rule? I missed that at my chrismation and wedding.  I don't remember being told I had to practice any birth control.

Quote
3.  In the SAME vein as no. 2 above, there will have to be clear indications that BOTH confessions are making strong efforts to teach abstenence, chastity and continence to you youth and young adults in the faith!!
So what would change?

Quote
4.  No. 3 above is ALREADY happening among some Orthodox shepherds and their flock, as it happens in the Catholic Church...and nobody is dying from the shock.
 
What was the change?

Quote
You fellows will find your liberal talk and attitudes will be shunned voluntarily by the faithful remnant.  In fact, it already is being ignored.
Don't know what you are talking about.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ICXCNIKA on September 13, 2010, 11:19:19 AM
Again I guess I would take this more seriously if I ever met a Catholic that followed or believed in HV. Whats the saying? Practice what you......? Darn can't remember it at the moment. :)

Fr Ambrose, the badgering will never end! It is just the tactic of incrementalism when you agree to this much new negotiations will begin with a new goal.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 11:30:26 AM

You fellows will find your liberal talk and attitudes will be shunned voluntarily by the faithful remnant.  In fact, it already is being ignored.

Mary

Well, that's  bit over the top.  As I pointed out yesterday, the teaching on contraception is not *mine* but I am faithful to what my bishops teach.  Are you advising disobedience?

The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church have a unified teaching which they declared to the faithful in Section XII.3 of the important 2000 Synodal document

"BASES OF THE SOCIAL CONCEPT
OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH"


http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/419128.html

also here
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/the-orthodox-church-and-society/introduction


The bishops of the Episcopal Council in 2000, about 220 of them
(http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2033/russiancouncilbishops20.jpg)
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 11:32:54 AM

2.  Orthodox hierarchs are well aware that IF the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy are going to put a united face on for the world in terms of moral issues then the moral issue of artificial birth control is going to be front and center, and Orthodoxy will have to at least change the precepts and make ALL artificial birth control, for males and females an exception rather than the rule.


It surprises me that you believe you know the hearts and minds of the Orthodox bishops.  It seems presumptuous to speak as you have.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 11:36:13 AM
It makes you think twice about any union.... we'll be badgered to death and made to conform to Roman Catholic ways.

That is funny that you say that. A friend of mine who was recently received into the Orthodox Church said that the only way that our two Churches could reunite would essentially be if the Pope became Orthodox and all of us followed him. That sure doesn't sound like a willingness to have dialogue or try and work out differences; it sounds more like "convert or perish."

Orthodoxy is very clear anmd makes no secret of it - Catholics and Anglicans, and all other Christian Churches, will need to bring their faith into line with the orthoodx faith, 100%.  Then we may unify.  Nobody needs to submit to anybody.  But the faith we hold must be one and the same.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 13, 2010, 11:48:17 AM
The bishops of the Episcopal Council in 2000, about 220 of them
(http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2033/russiancouncilbishops20.jpg)
I notice some statues in the background? I thought that the Orthodox Church did not allow statues as according to Orthodox teaching this would be against the Commandment forbidding  *graven* or 3D images? Why would these Orthodox bishops choose to ignore this commandment ?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 13, 2010, 11:58:35 AM
Orthodoxy is very clear anmd makes no secret of it - Catholics and Anglicans, and all other Christian Churches, will need to bring their faith into line with the orthoodx faith, 100%.  Then we may unify.  Nobody needs to submit to anybody.  But the faith we hold must be one and the same.
So for unity,  Catholics will not be allowed any instrumental music, such as organ music, during the liturgy, but only vocal music? And no statues either, but only icons in accord with the commandment against graven images?
Is there a list of the 100% Orthodox teachings somewhere that Catholics have to fall into line with? For example, does it include toll houses or the strict fasting during the lenten season that I have seen posted? BTW, how many Orthodox observe this strict and severe  lenten fasting 100%? Would it include the requirement to use the Julian calendar as some Orthodox insist on it for theological reasons?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 12:03:05 PM
The bishops of the Episcopal Council in 2000, about 220 of them
(http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2033/russiancouncilbishops20.jpg)
I notice some statues in the background? I thought that the Orthodox Church did not allow statues as according to Orthodox teaching this would be against the Commandment forbidding  *graven* or 3D images? Why would these Orthodox bishops choose to ignore this commandment ?

No problem with secular statues outside of a liturgical setting.   Russia is awash in statues of many important and historical personages.

These statues run around all four sides of the newly rebuild Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow.  The statues depict important historical figures in Russian history, both laymen and bishops.  They are not intended for veneration.

(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/462436/462436,1268729800,1/stock-photo-christ-the-savior-cathedral-moscow-russia-48807718.jpg)
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 12:11:25 PM
Orthodoxy is very clear anmd makes no secret of it - Catholics and Anglicans, and all other Christian Churches, will need to bring their faith into line with the orthoodx faith, 100%.  Then we may unify.  Nobody needs to submit to anybody.  But the faith we hold must be one and the same.
So for unity,  Catholics will not be allowed any instrumental music, such as organ music, during the liturgy, but only vocal music? And no statues either, but only icons in accord with the commandment against graven images?
Is there a list of the 100% Orthodox teachings somewhere that Catholics have to fall into line with? For example, does it include toll houses or the strict fasting during the lenten season that I have seen posted? BTW, how many Orthodox observe this strict and severe  lenten fasting 100%? Would it include the requirement to use the Julian calendar as some Orthodox insist on it for theological reasons?

I think that the only thing here which the Orthodox would insist on is a return to earlier fasting standards.

After all, my own Irish great grandparents, only 100 years ago,  observed the "Black Fast" during Lent. (Look up Black Fast in the Catholic Encyclopedia.)   It is basically identical to what the Orthodox do.  No reason why Catholics cannot return to their own fasting traditions.

As to how many Irishmen and how many Russians observe the fasts - common sense would say that not all of them did or do.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 13, 2010, 12:25:29 PM
Orthodoxy is very clear anmd makes no secret of it - Catholics and Anglicans, and all other Christian Churches, will need to bring their faith into line with the orthoodx faith, 100%.  Then we may unify.  Nobody needs to submit to anybody.  But the faith we hold must be one and the same.

So, in your opinion, could or would anything change in the Orthodox Church if such a reunion ever took place?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 13, 2010, 12:30:31 PM

2.  Orthodox hierarchs are well aware that IF the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy are going to put a united face on for the world in terms of moral issues then the moral issue of artificial birth control is going to be front and center, and Orthodoxy will have to at least change the precepts and make ALL artificial birth control, for males and females an exception rather than the rule.


It surprises me that you believe you know the hearts and minds of the Orthodox bishops.  It seems presumptuous to speak as you have.

Well that's true.  They may not be nearly as aware as I credit them as being.

Perhaps they think that the Catholic Church will yield on the precepts in Humanae Vitae or that we will speak with "one voice" with a group of bishops who preach water, drink wine when it comes to artificial birth control.

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

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 13, 2010, 12:30:32 PM
It makes you think twice about any union.... we'll be badgered to death and made to conform to Roman Catholic ways.

That is funny that you say that. A friend of mine who was recently received into the Orthodox Church said that the only way that our two Churches could reunite would essentially be if the Pope became Orthodox and all of us followed him. That sure doesn't sound like a willingness to have dialogue or try and work out differences; it sounds more like "convert or perish."

Orthodoxy is very clear anmd makes no secret of it - Catholics and Anglicans, and all other Christian Churches, will need to bring their faith into line with the orthoodx faith, 100%.  Then we may unify.  Nobody needs to submit to anybody.  But the faith we hold must be one and the same.

LOL  Well what that means is being worked out now between Catholics and Orthodox.   As I have noted before there may not be much at all to change in terms of doctrines of the faith on either side...except for improved understanding of what precisely is being taught at the moment.


Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 13, 2010, 12:30:46 PM
It makes you think twice about any union.... we'll be badgered to death and made to conform to Roman Catholic ways.

That is funny that you say that. A friend of mine who was recently received into the Orthodox Church said that the only way that our two Churches could reunite would essentially be if the Pope became Orthodox and all of us followed him. That sure doesn't sound like a willingness to have dialogue or try and work out differences;

we don't work out heresies.


That's progress!!  Since the Catholic Church teaches no heresies that need to be worked out.

Perhaps we can get down to some of the really important work then for the restoration of communion!!

Mary
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 13, 2010, 12:30:46 PM

You fellows will find your liberal talk and attitudes will be shunned voluntarily by the faithful remnant.  In fact, it already is being ignored.

Mary

Well, that's  bit over the top.  As I pointed out yesterday, the teaching on contraception is not *mine* but I am faithful to what my bishops teach.  Are you advising disobedience?

Oh my no!!...

This is what I was talking about when I said that they saw the hand-writing on the wall and ducked by not taking a formal stand against all forms of artificial birth control, and leaving the pastoral considerations to be worked out locally.

Mary
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 02:17:40 PM
The bishops of the Episcopal Council in 2000, about 220 of them
(http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2033/russiancouncilbishops20.jpg)
I notice some statues in the background? I thought that the Orthodox Church did not allow statues as according to Orthodox teaching this would be against the Commandment forbidding  *graven* or 3D images? Why would these Orthodox bishops choose to ignore this commandment ?

No problem with secular statues outside of a liturgical setting.   Russia is awash in statues of many important and historical personages.

These statues run around all four sides of the newly rebuild Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow.  The statues depict important historical figures in Russian history, both laymen and bishops.  They are not intended for veneration.

(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/462436/462436,1268729800,1/stock-photo-christ-the-savior-cathedral-moscow-russia-48807718.jpg)
They are also the only original part of the building: Stalin housed them in a museum and IIRC a subway station instead of destroying them like the icons.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 02:19:44 PM

2.  Orthodox hierarchs are well aware that IF the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy are going to put a united face on for the world in terms of moral issues then the moral issue of artificial birth control is going to be front and center, and Orthodoxy will have to at least change the precepts and make ALL artificial birth control, for males and females an exception rather than the rule.


It surprises me that you believe you know the hearts and minds of the Orthodox bishops.  It seems presumptuous to speak as you have.

Well that's true.  They may not be nearly as aware as I credit them as being.

Perhaps they think that the Catholic Church will yield on the precepts in Humanae Vitae or that we will speak with "one voice" with a group of bishops who preach water, drink wine when it comes to artificial birth control.

As I have noted in the past:  We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?
With the Voice of the Vatican. no thank you
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 02:22:03 PM
It makes you think twice about any union.... we'll be badgered to death and made to conform to Roman Catholic ways.

That is funny that you say that. A friend of mine who was recently received into the Orthodox Church said that the only way that our two Churches could reunite would essentially be if the Pope became Orthodox and all of us followed him. That sure doesn't sound like a willingness to have dialogue or try and work out differences;

we don't work out heresies.


That's progress!!  Since the Catholic Church teaches no heresies that need to be worked out.
filioque.

Quote
Perhaps we can get down to some of the really important work then for the restoration of communion!!
Renounce Toledo, Pastor Aeternas, the IC, and then we can start talking.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 02:24:19 PM

You fellows will find your liberal talk and attitudes will be shunned voluntarily by the faithful remnant.  In fact, it already is being ignored.

Mary

Well, that's  bit over the top.  As I pointed out yesterday, the teaching on contraception is not *mine* but I am faithful to what my bishops teach.  Are you advising disobedience?

Oh my no!!...

This is what I was talking about when I said that they saw the hand-writing on the wall and ducked by not taking a formal stand against all forms of artificial birth control, and leaving the pastoral considerations to be worked out locally.
Why should they take a formal stand spouting your party line?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 13, 2010, 02:49:48 PM
It makes you think twice about any union.... we'll be badgered to death and made to conform to Roman Catholic ways.

That is funny that you say that. A friend of mine who was recently received into the Orthodox Church said that the only way that our two Churches could reunite would essentially be if the Pope became Orthodox and all of us followed him. That sure doesn't sound like a willingness to have dialogue or try and work out differences;

we don't work out heresies.


That's progress!!  Since the Catholic Church teaches no heresies that need to be worked out.
filioque.

Quote
Perhaps we can get down to some of the really important work then for the restoration of communion!!
Renounce Toledo, Pastor Aeternas, the IC, and then we can start talking.

Not necessary to change anything.  That's why we're talking now at the highest levels. 

There's no need to insist on great changes.  There's a need to seek greater understanding. 

Unless you missed it, we are already talking and I have not heard on thing said about the Catholic Church becoming precisely like Orthodoxy and spending years in the penitent's box as Father Ambrose likes to go on about.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ICXCNIKA on September 13, 2010, 02:58:35 PM
Hilarious. I guess I need to start drinking the kool aid and then wow full communion.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 03:10:46 PM
It makes you think twice about any union.... we'll be badgered to death and made to conform to Roman Catholic ways.

That is funny that you say that. A friend of mine who was recently received into the Orthodox Church said that the only way that our two Churches could reunite would essentially be if the Pope became Orthodox and all of us followed him. That sure doesn't sound like a willingness to have dialogue or try and work out differences;

we don't work out heresies.


That's progress!!  Since the Catholic Church teaches no heresies that need to be worked out.
filioque.

Quote
Perhaps we can get down to some of the really important work then for the restoration of communion!!
Renounce Toledo, Pastor Aeternas, the IC, and then we can start talking.

Not necessary to change anything.  That's why we're talking now at the highest levels. 

There's no need to insist on great changes.  There's a need to seek greater understanding. 
We got higher levels.
(http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/The%20Pillars%20of%20Orthodoxy.jpg)

Quote
Unless you missed it, we are already talking and I have not heard on thing said about the Catholic Church becoming precisely like Orthodoxy and spending years in the penitent's box as Father Ambrose likes to go on about.
The Catholic Church is precisely like Orthodoxy.  your Vatican, well...
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 13, 2010, 03:20:02 PM


Unless you missed it, we are already talking and I have not heard on thing said about the Catholic Church becoming precisely like Orthodoxy and spending years in the penitent's box as Father Ambrose likes to go on about.

M.
Some, like Father A,  would like us all to do penance over the sack of Constantinople. It's quite funny because not only have I never been to "Constantinople" but such a place no longer even exists. I have, in fact, never sacked Constantinople. lol
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 13, 2010, 04:08:18 PM

You fellows will find your liberal talk and attitudes will be shunned voluntarily by the faithful remnant.  In fact, it already is being ignored.

Mary

Well, that's  bit over the top.  As I pointed out yesterday, the teaching on contraception is not *mine* but I am faithful to what my bishops teach.  Are you advising disobedience?

Oh my no!!...

This is what I was talking about when I said that they saw the hand-writing on the wall and ducked by not taking a formal stand against all forms of artificial birth control, and leaving the pastoral considerations to be worked out locally.
Why should they take a formal stand spouting your party line?

Why should they spend time talking about how we profess the same moral teachings?...or at least as much time as they've spent over the past few years?

Apparently Orthodox hierarchs are pushing that one.

Personally I think that has actually less chance of producing common ground than doctrinal discussions.

So don't ask me, ask your bishops.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 13, 2010, 04:08:18 PM
Hilarious. I guess I need to start drinking the kool aid and then wow full communion.

Sorry you feel that way.  There are other Orthodox who are actually actively seeking a deeper and better understanding of Catholic teaching in its own right, before they start to compare things superficially.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 13, 2010, 04:08:19 PM

(http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/The%20Pillars%20of%20Orthodoxy.jpg)


Some folks in Orthodoxy are actually aware that your patrimony is also the patrimony of the Catholic Church...so you can stand there and flex but you can't go very fast or far by denying that.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 09:56:34 PM
[
As I have noted in the past:  We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

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

You speak about "formal teaching" and "not the sinfulness of members"?  When 90% of the members are engaging in the sinfulness, what it is that you imagine the Muslims and the non-believers take notice of?  The reality of how Christianity is lived by its faithful, something the non-believers see and experience almost every day?  Or the unheeded publications from the Vatican?  Please, let's touch reality for a moment!  I often think that the reality of Orthodoxy's teaching on contraception is appreciated by outsiders.  Our teaching and the lives of our faithful coincide.  Whereas the Catholic teaching does not coincide and the reality is seen as amounting to great hypocrisy.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 10:03:44 PM

That's progress!!  Since the Catholic Church teaches no heresies that need to be worked out.

Shall we start with this one?

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no
doubt: this dogma is the heresy of heresies."


Saint Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987


Quote
Perhaps we can get down to some of the really important work then for the restoration of communion!!

The first important work is really the abolishment of the papacy.  Until that occurs we are dancing on the fringes.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 10:10:47 PM
[
Unless you missed it, we are already talking and I have not heard on thing said about the Catholic Church becoming precisely like Orthodoxy and spending years in the penitent's box as Father Ambrose likes to go on about.

There you go!  Telling porkies about what I have said. Tch! tch!   Penitent's box?  No, Mary, what I said was that the Roman Catholic Church has fallen ill from being in schism from the Church for 1000 years.  It needs a long time of recuperation when it returns.   And when it does, common sense says that an ailing man on the road to recovery is not handed the reins of world government.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 10:11:47 PM

You fellows will find your liberal talk and attitudes will be shunned voluntarily by the faithful remnant.  In fact, it already is being ignored.

Mary

Well, that's  bit over the top.  As I pointed out yesterday, the teaching on contraception is not *mine* but I am faithful to what my bishops teach.  Are you advising disobedience?

Oh my no!!...

This is what I was talking about when I said that they saw the hand-writing on the wall and ducked by not taking a formal stand against all forms of artificial birth control, and leaving the pastoral considerations to be worked out locally.
Why should they take a formal stand spouting your party line?

Why should they spend time talking about how we profess the same moral teachings?...or at least as much time as they've spent over the past few years?

Apparently Orthodox hierarchs are pushing that one.

Personally I think that has actually less chance of producing common ground than doctrinal discussions.

So don't ask me, ask your bishops.
Oh, I always do. But on the Orthodox teachings of our Catholic Church.  But since my bishop happens to have left the Vatican's communion, I don't imagine he wastes much time on its teachings.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 10:14:16 PM

(http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/The%20Pillars%20of%20Orthodoxy.jpg)


Some folks in Orthodoxy are actually aware that your patrimony is also the patrimony of the Catholic Church...so you can stand there and flex but you can't go very fast or far by denying that.
Yes. SS. Photios, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, heros of the Vatican.

We've stayed put. So we have gone neither fast nor far. Your Vatican after Vatican II has both gone far and fast to.....
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 10:14:50 PM
Orthodoxy is very clear anmd makes no secret of it - Catholics and Anglicans, and all other Christian Churches, will need to bring their faith into line with the orthoodx faith, 100%.  Then we may unify.  Nobody needs to submit to anybody.  But the faith we hold must be one and the same.

So, in your opinion, could or would anything change in the Orthodox Church if such a reunion ever took place?

Yes, our doom and gloom and weeping over the loss of the West would turn to rejoicing.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren,
whose separation from us is tearing us apart."

~ St Gregory of Nazianzen
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 10:19:17 PM
[
Some, like Father A,  would like us all to do penance over the sack of Constantinople.

More porkies. Tch! tch!  I have never said that you should do penance.  But I have said that you should return the stolen properties.   Isn't restitution a major plank in Catholic teaching?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 10:35:12 PM
Hilarious. I guess I need to start drinking the kool aid and then wow full communion.

There are other Orthodox who are actually actively seeking a deeper and better understanding of Catholic teaching in its own right, before they start to compare things superficially.
[/quote]

You always give the impression that Catholic teaching is some great miasmic fog which is inaccessible to all but the most learned.

That's a country mile from the apostolic teaching.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 10:40:37 PM

Some folks in Orthodoxy are actually aware that your patrimony is also the patrimony of the Catholic Church...

With regards to Roman Catholics what can we say of them except:  We are your past; we are your future.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 14, 2010, 03:46:04 AM

Some folks in Orthodoxy are actually aware that your patrimony is also the patrimony of the Catholic Church...

With regards to Roman Catholics what can we say of them except:  We are your past and we are your future.

You were never our past.  I've listened for years about how the west was NEVER really and truly partakers of the same faith.  Since the time of the Cappadocians at least we've been going off on our own way, etc. etc....and the final break was too long in coming according to many.  So you can't sell me that back of tricks.  Orthodoxy is not the Catholic past at all, according to Orthodoxy...and that is more than likely true the more I see and hear.

And you are our future only if your hierarchs agree to resume communion.

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

Now THERE's some doom and gloom  :)

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 14, 2010, 03:46:22 AM

(http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/The%20Pillars%20of%20Orthodoxy.jpg)


Some folks in Orthodoxy are actually aware that your patrimony is also the patrimony of the Catholic Church...so you can stand there and flex but you can't go very fast or far by denying that.
Yes. SS. Photios, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, heros of the Vatican.

We've stayed put. So we have gone neither fast nor far. Your Vatican after Vatican II has both gone far and fast to.....

Not only have we not gone to hell, we've grown and the papacy has not withered, and there's been a very clear internal assessment of Petrine Primacy.  Much has changed from the centuries of the "bad" popes, and under some very unpleasant circumstances.  And the changes have been for the better.

SS. Photios and Mark of Ephesus would have a better reception among their brother priests, bishops and monastics in the Catholic Church then any Catholic saint would receive among the Orthodox.

And St. Gregory Palamas is a saint in the Catholic Church.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 14, 2010, 03:47:12 AM
[
As I have noted in the past:  We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.

BTW your stats on NFP usage are skewed  :)...or your understanding of them are faulty...something.

In Christ,

Mary



Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 14, 2010, 12:36:40 PM

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

I fear that this may be true. It's heartbreaking to watch the EO Church as it falls away from the Apostolic faith with regard to birth control. Will it continue to spiral away from moral truth as the Anglican Church has? I hope not. I hope that the EOC's apostolic succession and valid sacraments will gaurd them from error. But if such things have not provided them from protection from error on the matter of ABC, then how much longer will they maintain Apostolic Succession? :(
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 14, 2010, 12:37:54 PM

And St. Gregory Palamas is a saint in the Catholic Church.


Indeed, venerated in the Byzantine Catholic Church.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 14, 2010, 12:48:54 PM

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

I fear that this may be true. It's heartbreaking to watch the EO Church as it falls away from the Apostolic faith with regard to birth control. Will it continue to spiral away from moral truth as the Anglican Church has? I hope not. I hope that the EOC's apostolic succession and valid sacraments will gaurd them from error. But if such things have not provided them from protection from error on the matter of ABC, then how much longer will they maintain Apostolic Succession? :(

Perhaps the Eastern Orthodox veering away from the ancient faith would be a blessing in disguise. The Anglican Communion has been becoming more and more liberal as time goes on, and now look what is happening. Traditional Anglican parishes are joining the Catholic Church left and right. Should Orthodoxy as a whole ever become liberal and depart from the Apostolic faith, there would still be countless Orthodox who would be devout and disagree with the changes. That would essentially leave them with two options: Oriental Orthodoxy or Catholicism.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 14, 2010, 01:08:14 PM

Some folks in Orthodoxy are actually aware that your patrimony is also the patrimony of the Catholic Church...

With regards to Roman Catholics what can we say of them except:  We are your past and we are your future.

You were never our past.  

The Apostles Peter and Paul and SS. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp etc. were never in Rome? Interesting.


Quote
I've listened for years about how the west was NEVER really and truly partakers of the same faith.  Since the time of the Cappadocians at least we've been going off on our own way, etc. etc....and the final break was too long in coming according to many.  So you can't sell me that back of tricks.  Orthodoxy is not the Catholic past at all, according to Orthodoxy...and that is more than likely true the more I see and hear.

And you are our future only if your hierarchs agree to resume communion.

That's your choice.

Quote
Otherwise you are what you are now to us
we don't care what we are to you. It neither determines our being nor guides us. Why are you so obsessed with us?

Quote
...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

Now THERE's some doom and gloom  :)

Well, let's see: since you went your seperate ways in the 12th century, you had this:
(http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/262/268312/art/figures/KISH219.jpg)(http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/brummettconcise/chapter14/medialib/illustrations/WALL5295291.gif)
Good thing the strong arm of the Spanish, Portuguese and French kings came to your aid to enforce your creed and spread it across the world.  Otherwise you would be very gloomy in Western Europe.

What we received from the Apostles we stand fast and hold firm until Christ come to reclaim it.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 14, 2010, 01:22:11 PM
we don't care what we are to you. It neither determines our being nor guides us. Why are you so obsessed with us?

Are we really obsessed with you guys though? Of course, myself as well as other Catholics on this forum have an interest in Orthodoxy (Oriental and Eastern) or else we would not be here, but I certainly agree with what Mary said earlier: to the majority of Catholics, Orthodoxy does not even exist. She made another good point, which is that you rarely see Eastern Orthodoxy brought up in Catholic apologetic texts, but Catholicism is mentioned in Eastern Orthodox apologetics all the time (and on Orthodox forums, hence this thread and many others). For whatever reason, you guys have felt it necessary to define your theology on how you are different than Roman Catholics. We do not do this. Our catechism is not littered with things like "Eastern Orthodoxy believes x, which is clearly wrong and why the Catholic Church believes y." We simply state our beliefs. It is a bit telling that you always have to put us down rather than just simply stating your beliefs. Is it, perhaps, because you realize we are in a race and you are losing, and you are being critical and mocking of us as a vain attempt to regain the numbers you once had?

It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 14, 2010, 02:14:35 PM

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

I fear that this may be true. It's heartbreaking to watch the EO Church as it falls away from the Apostolic faith with regard to birth control. Will it continue to spiral away from moral truth as the Anglican Church has? I hope not. I hope that the EOC's apostolic succession and valid sacraments will gaurd them from error. But if such things have not provided them from protection from error on the matter of ABC, then how much longer will they maintain Apostolic Succession? :(

Perhaps the Eastern Orthodox veering away from the ancient faith would be a blessing in disguise. The Anglican Communion has been becoming more and more liberal as time goes on, and now look what is happening. Traditional Anglican parishes are joining the Catholic Church left and right. Should Orthodoxy as a whole ever become liberal and depart from the Apostolic faith, there would still be countless Orthodox who would be devout and disagree with the changes. That would essentially leave them with two options: Oriental Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

 :)  That's pretty good!!   Now you are starting to frame the discussion so they sound like the flip side of Father Ambrose...I am not sure you really want to perfect that technique!!

I honestly do not think things are all that gloomy in Eastern Orthodoxy.  None of us can rest on roses...thorns maybe, but not a soft bed of petals... :laugh:

I am hoping that the Russian Church tightens things up a bit in their formal teaching, and leaves the ABC to pastoral wisdom, making it the last resort and not the first. 

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 14, 2010, 02:14:35 PM

Quote
I've listened for years about how the west was NEVER really and truly partakers of the same faith.  Since the time of the Cappadocians at least we've been going off on our own way, etc. etc....and the final break was too long in coming according to many.  So you can't sell me that back of tricks.  Orthodoxy is not the Catholic past at all, according to Orthodoxy...and that is more than likely true the more I see and hear.

And you are our future only if your hierarchs agree to resume communion.

That's your choice.

The doors are open.  The choice actually belongs to Orthodoxy.  The Catholic Church has chosen.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 14, 2010, 02:14:35 PM
I remain active for 2 reasons:

1.  It is good to have Catholics to be able to correct errors in this kind of public venue, and to better learn the differences between the two confessions.

2.  It is also my hope that, should we resume communion in my lifetime, I will be in a position to help Catholics understand why there's nothing in Orthodoxy that needs to be altered, nothing that is not fully faithful to revealed truth.

There used to be a third reason only it's been knocked out of me  :angel:  I expect to find it again before I die...I'd better!

There is also a great deal of good to be learned here about Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as the particular Churches and national Churches.  And also I find myself appreciating the moderators more and more.  This is a tough grouping to keep going in good grace.  I am impressed....on moderation of course... :laugh:...but impressed for all that!

M.

we don't care what we are to you. It neither determines our being nor guides us. Why are you so obsessed with us?

Are we really obsessed with you guys though? Of course, myself as well as other Catholics on this forum have an interest in Orthodoxy (Oriental and Eastern) or else we would not be here, but I certainly agree with what Mary said earlier: to the majority of Catholics, Orthodoxy does not even exist. She made another good point, which is that you rarely see Eastern Orthodoxy brought up in Catholic apologetic texts, but Catholicism is mentioned in Eastern Orthodox apologetics all the time (and on Orthodox forums, hence this thread and many others). For whatever reason, you guys have felt it necessary to define your theology on how you are different than Roman Catholics. We do not do this. Our catechism is not littered with things like "Eastern Orthodoxy believes x, which is clearly wrong and why the Catholic Church believes y." We simply state our beliefs. It is a bit telling that you always have to put us down rather than just simply stating your beliefs. Is it, perhaps, because you realize we are in a race and you are losing, and you are being critical and mocking of us as a vain attempt to regain the numbers you once had?

It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 14, 2010, 05:01:07 PM
It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?
1.  I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit.  They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods.  They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.
2.  I hope you've noticed that we also have sections devoted to comparing and contrasting Protestantism and Orthodoxy and to comparing and contrasting other Christian traditions with Orthodoxy, so don't think we're just picking on you.
3.  When you're numerically an almost invisible communion in all those traditionally Protestant and Catholic countries outside of Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, you're constantly being compared by non-Orthodox to the dominant traditions.  This reality kinda forces us to define ourselves in terms of what Catholicism and Protestantism are not.  I'd be willing to bet you'd be forced to do the same if you were to bring your Latin Rite Catholicism to Russia.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 14, 2010, 05:02:11 PM
we don't care what we are to you. It neither determines our being nor guides us. Why are you so obsessed with us?

Are we really obsessed with you guys though? Of course, myself as well as other Catholics on this forum have an interest in Orthodoxy (Oriental and Eastern) or else we would not be here, but I certainly agree with what Mary said earlier: to the majority of Catholics, Orthodoxy does not even exist. She made another good point, which is that you rarely see Eastern Orthodoxy brought up in Catholic apologetic texts, but Catholicism is mentioned in Eastern Orthodox apologetics all the time (and on Orthodox forums, hence this thread and many others). For whatever reason, you guys have felt it necessary to define your theology on how you are different than Roman Catholics. We do not do this. Our catechism is not littered with things like "Eastern Orthodoxy believes x, which is clearly wrong and why the Catholic Church believes y." We simply state our beliefs. It is a bit telling that you always have to put us down rather than just simply stating your beliefs. Is it, perhaps, because you realize we are in a race and you are losing, and you are being critical and mocking of us as a vain attempt to regain the numbers you once had?

Yeah, THAT's it!!! LOL.

Odd for someone who concedes the arguments to the Muslims and advocates outbreeding them instead. Captive audience.

Besides the obvious (Crusades etc..) let's take, say, the exchange between Pope Pius IX of Rome and the Patriarchs of the East. The Patriarchs summarize nicely:
Quote
In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold. In this Encyclical, he addresses those who at different times have gone over from different Christian Communions, and embraced the Papacy, and of course are favorable to him, extending his arguments also to the Orthodox, either particularly or without naming them; and, citing our divine and holy Fathers (p. 3, 1.14-18; p. 4, 1.19; p. 9, 1.6; and pp. 17, 23), he manifestly calumniates them and us their successors and descendants: them, as if they admitted readily the Papal commands and rescripts without question because issuing from the Popes is undoubted arbiters of the Catholic Church; us, as unfaithful to their examples (for thus he trespasses on the Fold committed to us by God), as severed from our Fathers, as careless of our sacred trusts, and of the soul's salvation of our spiritual children. Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne."

Depending on what you read in, your view of obsession may be skewed.  In Russia, Greek, Serbian, even Arabic, Orthodox wrting by and large doesn't bother with the Vatican.  In English, the Vatican has far more communicants than the Orthodox do in that language, and they keep on saying we are the same and should "reuturn to this throne." Hence the need to state (but not define) our theology as different from the Vatican's.  That's badk enough, but, as the letter shows, the Vatican insists on sending us unsolicited correspondence we do not need. No one requested the letter from the Vatican, and no one asked for it to be translated into Greek to be "disseminated like a plague from without."

Things haven't changed: we'd prefer if you would say in your catechism about the differences. Go the source:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
And you can get the Compendium in Russian, Romanian and even Belarusian. But not Polish: are there so few followers of the Vatican in Poland that they do not need it? No Ukrainian, although their largest "sui juris" organization speaks it (I'm aware the Ukis are making their own, but you'd think in 2 decades someone could have gotten around to it. I mean, they even bothered with Swedish).  Within a year of the CCC coming out, it was translated and available in Romanian, although 90% of the population belong to their Orhtodox Church, and most of the communicants of the Vatican in Romania don't historically speak Romanian (being Hungarians or Germans). English, with nearly 100x the number of communicants than those in Romania, let alone Romanian speaking (and more so, of the Latin rite), had to wait a few years.

So to save the unwary, things have to be written in Russian (who have a compendium of the CCC but no hiearchy: there's no need), Greek (IIRC they have a bishop, for the remnants of Italian occupation), Romanian, even Arabic on the Vatican's views:
Quote
Each one of our brethren and sons in Christ who have been piously brought up and instructed, wisely regarding the wisdom given him from God, will decide that the words of the present Bishop of Rome, like those of his schismatical predecessors, are not words of peace, as he affirms (p. 7,1.8), and of benevolence, but words of deceit and guile, tending to self-aggrandizement, agreeably to the practice of his antisynodical predecessors. We are therefore sure, that even as heretofore, so hereafter the Orthodox will not be beguiled. For the word of our LORD is sure (John x. 5), A stranger will they not follow, but flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.
For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

By chance is CAF one of them? We have a whole thread on that. LOL.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13287.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17805.0.html
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 14, 2010, 05:14:02 PM
3.  When you're numerically an almost invisible communion in all those traditionally Protestant and Catholic countries outside of Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, you're constantly being compared by non-Orthodox to the dominant traditions.  This reality kinda forces us to define ourselves in terms of what Catholicism and Protestantism are not.  I'd be willing to bet you'd be forced to do the same if you were to bring your Latin Rite Catholicism to Russia.

I was going to give a go at arguing with you about this but there's a chance you have a point here so I'll do something else with it.

Orthodoxy's size is a great gift.  It allows you an ecclesiastical intimacy that is lost to the Catholic Church and particularly lost since we have, in general, lost the habit of being in close contact with our monastics and religious.   That's a centuries long process but it has done us spiritual harm, and the burgeoning of third order Carmelites and Dominicans and Benedictines is a great blessing!!

But back to you and Orthodoxy and size.

I had a dear friend in my mid-life who came up about to my elbow without her high heels on and when we'd be cooking together or some other activity, I'd turn around and loose her, and always had to be careful not to poke her in the nose with my elbow.

However, when she and I were working on professional projects and out in the world of hard knocks and heavy competition, she had a marvelous presence that made her stand at least as tall as I stood, if not taller!

And that is my personal sense of Orthodoxy. 

She may be small but I would never be ashamed to face the world, the flesh and the devil with her by my side!!

That is the third reason I stay here, but I loose track of it on occasion,  just as I used to loose track of my dear darling old friend in the kitchen.

M.

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 14, 2010, 06:01:19 PM

1.  I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit.  They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods.  They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.


I don't know whom you represent in the Orthodox world, Peter, but I must contest what you are saying about me.  In this thread on birth control I faithfully represent the teachings of the 220 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church as they formulated it at the Millennial Synod 10 years ago.  I have emphasised more than once that what I write is *not* my opinion but the teaching of the Russian bishops.

Of course we are always pleased to hear the voices of other Churches and it would be good if Greeks and OCA people were to speak up.  Do you agree with the Russian Orthodox?  Do you have differing teachings?

Father Irish Hermit 
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 14, 2010, 06:06:50 PM

Some folks in Orthodoxy are actually aware that your patrimony is also the patrimony of the Catholic Church...

With regards to Roman Catholics what can we say of them except:  We are your past and we are your future.

You were never our past.  I've listened for years about how the west was NEVER really and truly partakers of the same faith.  Since the time of the Cappadocians at least we've been going off on our own way, etc. etc....and the final break was too long in coming according to many.  So you can't sell me that back of tricks.  Orthodoxy is not the Catholic past at all, according to Orthodoxy...and that is more than likely true the more I see and hear.

And you are our future only if your hierarchs agree to resume communion.

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

Now THERE's some doom and gloom  :)


The Church survives the doom and gloom because the gates of hell will never prevail.

The gates of hell have thrown many forces against the Church - those of militant Islam, militant Catholicism and militant atheistic Communism.  All have failed to destroy us.  "God is with us, understand ye nations and submit yourselves, for God is with us."
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 14, 2010, 06:11:29 PM
[
As I have noted in the past:  We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.



Such throw-away remarks tend to inflate the ego but they do not correspond with reality.  Is Pope Benedict guilty of being "content with nominalism" when he is keen for our two Churches to work together in Western Europe? 
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 14, 2010, 06:13:43 PM

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

I fear that this may be true. It's heartbreaking to watch the EO Church as it falls away from the Apostolic faith with regard to birth control. Will it continue to spiral away from moral truth as the Anglican Church has? I hope not. I hope that the EOC's apostolic succession and valid sacraments will gaurd them from error. But if such things have not provided them from protection from error on the matter of ABC, then how much longer will they maintain Apostolic Succession? :(

The mice are rustling!
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 14, 2010, 06:19:43 PM
[
It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

The largest Catholic forum in the world, CAF, used to have such a section for many years.  They abolished it because too many Catholics were converting to Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 14, 2010, 06:44:54 PM

1.  I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit.  They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods.  They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.


I don't know whom you represent in the Orthodox world, Peter, but I must contest what you are saying about me.  In this thread on birth control I faithfully represent the teachings of the 220 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church as they formulated it at the Millennial Synod 10 years ago.  I have emphasised more than once that what I write is *not* my opinion but the teaching of the Russian bishops.
That's not the root of what I said about you.  What I said is that you don't represent the majority of Orthodox here on this forum.  It's not so much the substance of what you say as it is the manner in which you say it.  Your apologetic methodology is very different from what most of us here practice the majority of the time.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 14, 2010, 07:03:35 PM

1.  I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit.  They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods.  They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.


I don't know whom you represent in the Orthodox world, Peter, but I must contest what you are saying about me.  In this thread on birth control I faithfully represent the teachings of the 220 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church as they formulated it at the Millennial Synod 10 years ago.  I have emphasised more than once that what I write is *not* my opinion but the teaching of the Russian bishops.
That's not the root of what I said about you.  What I said is that you don't represent the majority of Orthodox here on this forum.  It's not so much the substance of what you say as it is the manner in which you say it.  Your apologetic methodology is very different from what most of us here practice the majority of the time.

Than God you have clarified.  Some of us had the impression that you were accusing Irish Hermit of not truly representing the Orthodox faith.

Your own methods are unique and are known to confuse many of our forum members.  The manner in which you say things can be rather hurtful and other members feel ill at ease and "put down."  I have seen members complain on this score. I don't know if I do that myself?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Wyatt on September 15, 2010, 12:19:13 AM

1.  I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit.  They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods.  They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.


I don't know whom you represent in the Orthodox world, Peter, but I must contest what you are saying about me.  In this thread on birth control I faithfully represent the teachings of the 220 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church as they formulated it at the Millennial Synod 10 years ago.  I have emphasised more than once that what I write is *not* my opinion but the teaching of the Russian bishops.
That's not the root of what I said about you.  What I said is that you don't represent the majority of Orthodox here on this forum.  It's not so much the substance of what you say as it is the manner in which you say it.  Your apologetic methodology is very different from what most of us here practice the majority of the time.

Than God you have clarified.  Some of us had the impression that you were accusing Irish Hermit of not truly representing the Orthodox faith.

Your own methods are unique and are known to confuse many of our forum members.  The manner in which you say things can be rather hurtful and other members feel ill at ease and "put down."  I have seen members complain on this score. I don't know if I do that myself?

In all fairness, Father, the only thing I have took issue with as far as your conduct on the forum is your unwillingness to listen to us Catholics when we try to explain what we actually believe.

As far as ialmisry, he seems to be in love with the idea that being Eastern Orthodox makes him superior to everyone else and how off-base and misled everyone else is, which is hardly the attitude to have. I believe that I have the fullness of truth as a Catholic Christian, but I certainly do not feel smug about it nor do I feel like mocking everyone who doesn't think as I do. That is hardly what Christ would want. Indeed, that haughty attitude is exactly one of the things that led me away from Protestantism and to Catholicism in the first place. Many Protestants act so arrogant. They act as if their interpretation of their truncated Bibles is absolute truth. I could never stand that, nor did I believe it. What I saw in Catholicism was humbleness and humility. I think many Protestants think that Catholics don't know their faith simply because you usually will not hear a Catholic engage in debate with a Protestant. I came to realize that this is not because Catholics don't know their faith, but rather that Catholics are content with remaining silent and turning the other cheek as they are trashed and mocked.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 15, 2010, 01:20:50 AM

1.  I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit.  They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods.  They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.


I don't know whom you represent in the Orthodox world, Peter, but I must contest what you are saying about me.  In this thread on birth control I faithfully represent the teachings of the 220 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church as they formulated it at the Millennial Synod 10 years ago.  I have emphasised more than once that what I write is *not* my opinion but the teaching of the Russian bishops.
That's not the root of what I said about you.  What I said is that you don't represent the majority of Orthodox here on this forum.  It's not so much the substance of what you say as it is the manner in which you say it.  Your apologetic methodology is very different from what most of us here practice the majority of the time.

Than God you have clarified.  Some of us had the impression that you were accusing Irish Hermit of not truly representing the Orthodox faith.

Your own methods are unique and are known to confuse many of our forum members.  The manner in which you say things can be rather hurtful and other members feel ill at ease and "put down."  I have seen members complain on this score. I don't know if I do that myself?

In all fairness, Father, the only thing I have took issue with as far as your conduct on the forum is your unwillingness to listen to us Catholics when we try to explain what we actually believe.

As far as ialmisry, he seems to be in love with the idea that being Eastern Orthodox makes him superior to everyone else and how off-base and misled everyone else is, which is hardly the attitude to have. I believe that I have the fullness of truth as a Catholic Christian, but I certainly do not feel smug about it nor do I feel like mocking everyone who doesn't think as I do. That is hardly what Christ would want. Indeed, that haughty attitude is exactly one of the things that led me away from Protestantism and to Catholicism in the first place. Many Protestants act so arrogant. They act as if their interpretation of their truncated Bibles is absolute truth. I could never stand that, nor did I believe it. What I saw in Catholicism was humbleness and humility. I think many Protestants think that Catholics don't know their faith simply because you usually will not hear a Catholic engage in debate with a Protestant. I came to realize that this is not because Catholics don't know their faith, but rather that Catholics are content with remaining silent and turning the other cheek as they are trashed and mocked.
Sometimes communications on the internet may give a wrong impression as to what the person is trying to say. It has happened to me a few times. Face to face communications are oftentimes better.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2010, 01:48:32 AM
I decided to bring my answer onto this Catholic Contraception thread, since as Peter has reminded us, we probably should be discussing the matter here and not in the Infallibity thread. .

Arurestone asked:


Assuming your figure is correct, what's 2% of a billion? Another big number? Like 20,000,000?


Dear Azurestone,

The USCCB figure of 2-3% of Catholics using NFP applies to Catholic married couples and not to the entirety of the Catholic Church - not to the children, the nuns, the elderly, etc.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2010, 01:54:33 AM

Are we really obsessed with you guys though? Of course, myself as well as other Catholics on this forum have an interest in Orthodoxy (Oriental and Eastern) or else we would not be here, but I certainly agree with what Mary said earlier: to the majority of Catholics, Orthodoxy does not even exist. She made another good point, which is that you rarely see Eastern Orthodoxy brought up in Catholic apologetic texts, but Catholicism is mentioned in Eastern Orthodox apologetics all the time (and on Orthodox forums, hence this thread and many others). For whatever reason, you guys have felt it necessary to define your theology on how you are different than Roman Catholics. We do not do this. Our catechism is not littered with things like "Eastern Orthodoxy believes x, which is clearly wrong and why the Catholic Church believes y." We simply state our beliefs. It is a bit telling that you always have to put us down rather than just simply stating your beliefs. Is it, perhaps, because you realize we are in a race and you are losing, and you are being critical and mocking of us as a vain attempt to regain the numbers you once had?

It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

If my brother and sister Orthodox agree, I am happy to self impose a moratorium on discussions with Catholics.  This would allow our conversations to focus more on Orthodox teachings and eliminate the contention which arises through Catholic participation.

Is anybody in favour of a moratorium?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2010, 04:04:11 AM
Writing on NFP Christus Dominust said:


You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Abstinence when the wife is fertile...


Will this not foster an anticonception mentality among Catholics and lead, as Mary anticipates, to women priests?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2010, 04:13:46 AM
The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.
Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?
You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Abstinence when the wife is fertile rather than any day of the week as long as she is on contraceptives. I can't be any more blunt than that. Also, wouldn't you agree that most contraceptives take a toll on a woman's body and health within time? So how is that being open to life? Might as well take up smoking as well. I do think we have to look at the whole spectrum.


So it is more than just the intent of the couple to prevent conception.

I am sure your priest can explain it thouroughly.

My inner circle of Roman Catholic priests would be more likely to fudge the issue and say that the matter is for the conscience of the married couple, for the internal forum (forum conscientiae.)
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2010, 04:16:27 AM
A Case of Conscience. Confessors and Contraception

The latest instructions from the Vatican on how to deal with spouses who commit contraceptive acts in good faith soften the previous severity. The teaching remains intact, but in the confessional the conscience of the faithful must be respected

by Sandro Magister


http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344740?eng=y
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 15, 2010, 05:07:06 AM
[
It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

The largest Catholic forum in the world, CAF, used to have such a section for many years.  They abolished it because too many Catholics were converting to Orthodoxy.

 :)  I don't think we saw much of a dip in overall increase in new catechumen and candidates world wide, Father.  Sometimes having people go where they are most comfortable spiritually and intellectually  is a very good thing.  It is a rare time when I am sorry to see people go into Orthodoxy.  There is constant motion among individuals and groups trying to find a religious space that is the best for the salvation of their souls.  I think it is something quite natural.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 15, 2010, 05:08:13 AM
[
As I have noted in the past:  We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.



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

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

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

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

And it may have slipped your notice but he's not rushing to respond to the remark made that he and the Moscow Patriarch think alike on issues of morality.

In fact, he's not rushing to claim any moral unity at all, at this point.

There's a reason for that.  It isn't there yet.  Would surprise me very much if there was a formal agreed statement in the near future.  That would not be taken lightly on the part of the Vatican...Pope Benedict in particular.   He tends to be a stickler for accuracy when he gets the chance.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2010, 08:19:45 AM
[
It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

The largest Catholic forum in the world, CAF, used to have such a section for many years.  They abolished it because too many Catholics were converting to Orthodoxy.

 :)  I don't think we saw much of a dip in overall increase in new catechumen and candidates world wide, Father.  Sometimes having people go where they are most comfortable spiritually and intellectually  is a very good thing.  It is a rare time when I am sorry to see people go into Orthodoxy.  There is constant motion among individuals and groups trying to find a religious space that is the best for the salvation of their souls.  I think it is something quite natural.

M.

Unfortunately the CAF authorities did not see it in your way and they banned most of the Orthodox posters and removed nearly all our posts.... quite a loss since some of the posts, going back several years, amounted to small monographs on some topics.   Much valuable information was destroyed, and it was done overnight so that nobody had any chance to save their postings.  They even thought of the Google caches of CAF messages and saw to it that these also were rendered inaccessible.  It was a thoroughgoing piece of work indeed.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2010, 08:26:45 AM
[
As I have noted in the past:  We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.



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

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

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

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


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

As for a "pointed message" the message received by the Orthodox was, as I have said, Benedict is ignorant of our matrimonial theology or he does know and, for purposes of his own, was being dishonest.   
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2010, 08:43:10 AM

And it may have slipped your notice but he's not rushing to respond to the remark made that he and the Moscow Patriarch think alike on issues of morality.

In fact, he's not rushing to claim any moral unity at all, at this point.

There's a reason for that.  It isn't there yet.  Would surprise me very much if there was a formal agreed statement in the near future.  That would not be taken lightly on the part of the Vatican...Pope Benedict in particular.   He tends to be a stickler for accuracy when he gets the chance.


M.

Do get it right! 

MOSCOW, JULY 19, 2010 (Zenit.org).-

http://www.zenit.org/article-29930?l=english

"Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russias says he and Benedict XVI often see eye-to-eye on many issues, especially with regard to those of a moral nature."


Please note the qualifiers in those words of the Patriarch.

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 15, 2010, 09:09:45 AM
[
As I have noted in the past:  We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2010, 09:17:16 AM
 
BTW: Twitchet is feminine.  Twitchit is masculine.  One soft, the other sharp...heh!


Have deleted my original message.  Forum members can look the word up with a google search.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2010, 09:28:14 AM
[
As I have noted in the past:  We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.



The answer to all your rationalising and surmising and misrepresentations above about Orthodox second marriages can be easily given.   

Take in your hand the Service Book and read the Rite of Second Crowning.

It is all there - all the theology clearly expressed.

This answer has already been provided to you previously in another thread.
____
P.S.:  If you wish to discuss it further you could resurrect the thread and not derail this one.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2010, 12:55:27 PM
In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods, and far, far better than coitus interruptus. The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Not that you don't realize this, but this most likely cart-horse. NFP requires actual communication, honesty, thoughtfulness in an area of inter-personal relations where it is often most lacking.

I can only imagine a couple with that degree of rapport about their sex life would have a rather healthy intimacy in most other areas of their relationship.FWIW.
Yes, if they don't  such honesty they either get it or they don't or get pregnant, which brings pressure on a situation for which, not wanting children obviously at that time, they are not prepared.

Children used to be an incentive to stay together, now with the divorce industry they are incentive for divorce (much of the industry depends on children to justify their existence: "family" i.e. divorce litigation now is like a third of the law case load now.

Which brings up the question of a couple who do not want children, ever, and use "NFP" with its superior track record, to make sure they do not. Such couples exist.  They of course would boost the numbers of those NFP couples with the 0% divorce rate, but hardly make the Vatican's argument for "being open for life."

That one can use other forms of birth control (and coitus during infertile periods cannot be said to be more natural than coitus interruptus), without communicating at all with the partner helps raise their divorce rates. but that's a sympton, not a cause.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 15, 2010, 01:23:31 PM
Look, this NFP vs. ABC issue is being made much more complicated than is necessary.
NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.
According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.
It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.

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

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

On the other hand, NFP does not frustrate the prupose of sex.
There is nothing contrary to natural law about abstaining from sex for certain periods. But when one does engage in sex, one must not purposely frustrate its prupose: procreation during the fertile periods.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2010, 01:26:47 PM
The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.
Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?
You are looking at it from the wrong perspective.
It is the perspective Humanae Vitae set up.
Quote
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.

Abstinence when the wife is fertile rather than any day of the week as long as she is on contraceptives. I can't be any more blunt than that.
Can you be clearer ???

Also, wouldn't you agree that most contraceptives take a toll on a woman's body and health within time?
Condons don't as far as I can see. Perhaps not diaphragms, can't tell for IUDs (immoral because no one knows for sure how they work). Many women take the pill for their health. What did you have in mind?

Pregnancy tells a h*ll of a toll on a woman's body and health with time, and with mutliple pregnancies.

So how is that being open to life? Might as well take up smoking as well. I do think we have to look at the whole spectrum.
What are you looking for?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2010, 01:39:16 PM
Look, this NFP vs. ABC issue is being made much more complicated than is necessary.
Talk to Pope Paul of Rome.

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

During which periods women desire sex more, because they are at their fertile period.  You even can claim some patristics on that, aready quoted:
No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.
Our distinction between NFP and artificial contraception is hardly "artificial." Using the natural fertility cycle of a woman to space pregnancies is hardly the same as throwing some latex between a husband and wife or taking a pill.
Or withdrawing a....: he has to eventually.  And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."

NFP does not violate this principle,
Neither does coitus interruptus.

because it is the nature of sex not to produce children during the non-fertile periods.
According to your patristics, it is an outrage against the nature of sex to indulge during the non-fertile periods.

ABC is a violation of this natural law principal, because it purposely frustrates the nature of sex during fertile periods.
How about using "ABC" during the non-fertile periods?

On the other hand, NFP does not frustrate the prupose of sex.
It closes one off from being "open to life."

There is nothing contrary to natural law about abstaining from sex for certain periods.
According to St. Clement, during the non-fertile period.

But when one does engage in sex, one must not purposely frustrate its prupose:

How about "orally consumated sex"?
procreation during the fertile periods.
St. Jerome doesn't add that last part.

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 15, 2010, 01:50:31 PM
Neither does coitus interruptus.

Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law. I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina. In fact, if you read the bible, Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.
According to your patristics, it is an outrage against the nature of sex to indulge during the non-fertile periods.
I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason. But if you want to talk Patristics, the Catholic position is MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers than the EO position, which basically ignores them and then pretends like the EO Church has never changed.
How about using "ABC" during the non-fertile periods?
What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods? I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.
It closes one off from being "open to life."
1. NFP is open to life because it should not be used with a contraceptive mentalilty ("I am only going to have x number of kids and that is it").
2. Did I even use the term "open to life" in my argument?
According to St. Clement, during the non-fertile period.
1. Clarify and quote.
2. You think the Fathers were all around wrong about birth control, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here. At least our position is much closer to the spirit of the Fathers. Perhaps some of them were wrong on some of the particulars of the matter, but the spirit of what they taught, and their consensus is correct. We are in line with that. You are not.
How about "orally consumated sex"?
The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively. It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally. Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.
St. Jerome doesn't add that last part.
So?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2010, 02:28:20 PM
The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.
Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?

The answer to this is very important because it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.
by whom is the question.

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

1. There is no! precept in the Catholic Church against continence in marriage, meaning that there is nothing in Catholic morality that precludes a couple from deciding not to engage in conjugal lovemaking, sex.
Raises the question, why are they married? That is against the nature of marriage.  As our Lord points out, citing Genesis.

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

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

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

4. It is possible to not want children at all ever, and in general terms, that would be a sinful intent in marriage
Is it sinful in monasticism?
That was, and is, an accusation brought against monasticism:failure to produce the next generation.. But that is part of the point of the monasticism, and there is more to it than that.

But there is more to marriage than just procreating too.

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

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

6. NFP does not allow for sexual intercourse that is patently closed off to the possibility of life.
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 15, 2010, 02:51:35 PM
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?

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

Mary
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2010, 03:13:26 PM
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?

Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.
Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.

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

As to knowing a great more about the Ortodox Catholic Church than the Vatican, I should hope so, though I attended the latter's schools. But since Orthodoxy cannot be contained in your contraceptive box, I don't know what you gleaned from my knowlege of Orthodoxy from this thread.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 15, 2010, 03:16:37 PM
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?

Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.
Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.
Bologna
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2010, 03:27:42 PM
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?

Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.
Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.
Bologna

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

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

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

The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively. It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally. Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 15, 2010, 03:56:03 PM
[
As I have noted in the past:  We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.


But the US tribunals require that the Catholic couple obtain a civil divorce before applying for the marriage annulment. If Jesus was against divorce, why do the Catholic tribunals require it even before looking at the case?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on September 15, 2010, 04:00:14 PM
Look, this NFP vs. ABC issue is being made much more complicated than is necessary.
NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.
According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.
It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.

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

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

On the other hand, NFP does not frustrate the prupose of sex.
There is nothing contrary to natural law about abstaining from sex for certain periods. But when one does engage in sex, one must not purposely frustrate its prupose: procreation during the fertile periods.
Do you think that a surgical bypass to reduce one's weight would be a violation of the natural law ? A person has this operation so that he can enjoy eating but still lose weight, while the food goes down the tube and is discarded? Would this amount to a frustation of the nature and primary purpose of eating?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 15, 2010, 04:07:03 PM
This is about the extent of the depth that we are going to get out of this discussion and I don't doubt that opening a new thread on the topic of the mystery of Christian sexuality will only degenerate as this topic has and perhaps even more quickly. 

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

Purity. The Mystery of Christian Sexuality:  by Deitrich vonHildebrand

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

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

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

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2010, 06:05:00 PM

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


So why has Pope Benedict proposed it?  Can he not see as clearly as you do?   
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Iconodule on September 15, 2010, 06:27:49 PM
Obviously, Pope Benedict needs to spend more time on internet discussion boards to find out what Orthodox are really like.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2010, 06:48:47 PM
I hope this thread has been instructive to all Orthodox reading this Forum section, who actually think that there's any chance that there can be cooperation on moral and social issues between our confessions. 
Was someone specific seeking such cooperation?

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

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

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

Quote
On a personal note, my son argues the wisdom of Robert Anton Wilson against the deceit of the Catholic Church using many the same tactics as Isa uses to argue the wisdom of Orthodoxy against the deceit of the Catholic Church.  I don't spend much time in discussion with my son any longer, either.
Never heard of him.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 15, 2010, 09:50:22 PM
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?

Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.
Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.
Bologna

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

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

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

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

If you think that objecting to the pull out method is about nonthing more than mechanics, then you don't understad sex at all
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Paisius on September 15, 2010, 10:35:55 PM
I have to say the level of blatant hypocrisy shown by Catholics and the Catholic Church on this subject is absolutely staggering. I had never read Humanae Vitae before but decided to read it after what Isa said about it. He is absolutely correct about the document; there is not one single reference to Tradition or to the Fathers.....not one, zero, zilch, nada. In fact as has been pointed out the patristic consensus seems to be that sex is for procreation and that doing anything to frustrate that is gravely sinful. Even recent popes have made statements that preclude anything that potentially frustrates conception.


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


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




In Christ
Joe

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: theistgal on September 15, 2010, 10:44:55 PM
So you're saying both Churches have abandoned Tradition, in this area at least?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Paisius on September 15, 2010, 10:53:41 PM
So you're saying both Churches have abandoned Tradition, in this area at least?


It certainly appears both Churches have a more nuanced view on the subject. Both Churches have taken a more sympathetic view of allowing couples to take steps to space out children while still appreciating the unitive aspect of marital relations.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2010, 11:33:45 PM
Neither does coitus interruptus.
Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law.

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

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

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

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

He has some interesting views on semen:
Quote
Now the soul is infected with the corruption of original sin by the carnal semen....Accordingly the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed, as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): "In whom all have sinned": whereas it is in the bodily semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power of the semen that original sin together with human nature is transmitted to the child...Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin...The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational soul, but disposes the matter for it...The corruption of original sin is nowise caused by God, but by the sin alone of our first parent through carnal generation. And so, since creation implies a relation in the soul to God alone, it cannot be said that the soul is tainted through being created. On the other hand, infusion implies relation both to God infusing and to the flesh into which the soul is infused. And so, with regard to God infusing, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through being infused; but only with regard to the body into which it is infused
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2083.htm

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

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

This always ignores the mention of why Onan was spilling seed-if it is not important, why is it mentioned? The reference to Deut. is defense of a weak exegesis, if not eisogesis.  The humiiliation was for not marrying the woman.  That is not what Onan did.  He took her with no intention of giving her a son, but using her for sex.
I don't claim St. Jerome as the authority on sexual morality (God forbid!), but the apologists for Humanae Vitae claim him.  Honestly requires I cite those Fathers upon which they depend (as HV doesn't cite patristics. It can't).  Since I do not follow HV  (at least in particulars), those who follow HV  are bound to follow him, not I. I'm just citing the record.
Quote
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
Do feel free, however, to cite any Church Father on Onan.

According to your patristics, it is an outrage against the nature of sex to indulge during the non-fertile periods.
I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason. But if you want to talk Patristics, the Catholic position is MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers
Your problem is that your "patristic position" argues from "reason."

NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.
According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.
It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.
During which periods women desire sex more, because they are at their fertile period.  You even can claim some patristics on that, aready quoted:
No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.
Our distinction between NFP and artificial contraception is hardly "artificial." Using the natural fertility cycle of a woman to space pregnancies is hardly the same as throwing some latex between a husband and wife or taking a pill.
Or withdrawing a....: he has to eventually.  And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."

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

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

and then pretends like the EO Church has never changed.

She hasn't. Ever since Christ blessed the marriage at Cana.
How about using "ABC" during the non-fertile periods?
What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods?
Combining contraceptive methods is not uncommon in the least.
I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.
I can assure you it is not.
It closes one off from being "open to life."
1. NFP is open to life because it should not be used with a contraceptive mentalilty ("I am only going to have x number of kids and that is it").
Although its working does not depend on mentality, it depends on "contraceptive mentality" to be employed. And I'm not sure that your quote would violate Humanae Vitae as it is taught nowadays.
2. Did I even use the term "open to life" in my argument?
Don't know. Does it matter?: the phrase is part and parcel of the HV apologia.

According to St. Clement, during the non-fertile period.
1. Clarify and quote.
Done already, see above.
2. You think the Fathers were all around wrong about birth control, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here.
That I think certain celibate Fathers haven't a clue on married life, I can tell that by reading: what they theorized on I live/d. As to the underlining principles, we have St. John Chrysostom and others, including in many details St. Augustine.

At least our position is much closer to the spirit of the Fathers.
There are Fathers who held marriage in abhorrence, and those who held it in honor. Which one are you claiming, as the HV apologia depends on the former.

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

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

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

How about "orally consumated sex"?
The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively.
The mouth isn't evolved/desinged for speaking. And yet it does.

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

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

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

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

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

That's why I'm intrigued on how this has been inserted into the HV apologia, eg.
The fact of this change, introducing a distinction between ABC and NFP leads to some interesting eisogesis: from the same EWTN site:
Quote
Letter of Barnabas

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

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

Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.
I'll buy my bread from a baker. He couldn't even figure out conception as the beginning of life, something not only known by nature, but confirmed by revelation.

St. Jerome doesn't add that last part.
So?
So where did you get it?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 16, 2010, 12:09:22 AM

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


Onan's abrupt death seems awfully unfair to poor Onan.   There are millions of teenage boys walking the planet who have not been struck dead for onanism.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 16, 2010, 02:13:56 PM

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


Onan's abrupt death seems awfully unfair to poor Onan.   There are millions of teenage boys walking the planet who have not been struck dead for onanism.
Hate to be the one that is the example.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on September 16, 2010, 02:16:04 PM
Neither does coitus interruptus.
Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law.

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

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

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

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

He has some interesting views on semen:
Quote
Now the soul is infected with the corruption of original sin by the carnal semen....Accordingly the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed, as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): "In whom all have sinned": whereas it is in the bodily semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power of the semen that original sin together with human nature is transmitted to the child...Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin...The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational soul, but disposes the matter for it...The corruption of original sin is nowise caused by God, but by the sin alone of our first parent through carnal generation. And so, since creation implies a relation in the soul to God alone, it cannot be said that the soul is tainted through being created. On the other hand, infusion implies relation both to God infusing and to the flesh into which the soul is infused. And so, with regard to God infusing, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through being infused; but only with regard to the body into which it is infused
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2083.htm

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

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

This always ignores the mention of why Onan was spilling seed-if it is not important, why is it mentioned? The reference to Deut. is defense of a weak exegesis, if not eisogesis.  The humiiliation was for not marrying the woman.  That is not what Onan did.  He took her with no intention of giving her a son, but using her for sex.
I don't claim St. Jerome as the authority on sexual morality (God forbid!), but the apologists for Humanae Vitae claim him.  Honestly requires I cite those Fathers upon which they depend (as HV doesn't cite patristics. It can't).  Since I do not follow HV  (at least in particulars), those who follow HV  are bound to follow him, not I. I'm just citing the record.
Quote
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
Do feel free, however, to cite any Church Father on Onan.

According to your patristics, it is an outrage against the nature of sex to indulge during the non-fertile periods.
I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason. But if you want to talk Patristics, the Catholic position is MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers
Your problem is that your "patristic position" argues from "reason."

NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.
According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.
It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.
During which periods women desire sex more, because they are at their fertile period.  You even can claim some patristics on that, aready quoted:
No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.
Our distinction between NFP and artificial contraception is hardly "artificial." Using the natural fertility cycle of a woman to space pregnancies is hardly the same as throwing some latex between a husband and wife or taking a pill.
Or withdrawing a....: he has to eventually.  And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."

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

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

and then pretends like the EO Church has never changed.

She hasn't. Ever since Christ blessed the marriage at Cana.
How about using "ABC" during the non-fertile periods?
What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods?
Combining contraceptive methods is not uncommon in the least.
I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.
I can assure you it is not.
It closes one off from being "open to life."
1. NFP is open to life because it should not be used with a contraceptive mentalilty ("I am only going to have x number of kids and that is it").
Although its working does not depend on mentality, it depends on "contraceptive mentality" to be employed. And I'm not sure that your quote would violate Humanae Vitae as it is taught nowadays.
2. Did I even use the term "open to life" in my argument?
Don't know. Does it matter?: the phrase is part and parcel of the HV apologia.

According to St. Clement, during the non-fertile period.
1. Clarify and quote.
Done already, see above.
2. You think the Fathers were all around wrong about birth control, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here.
That I think certain celibate Fathers haven't a clue on married life, I can tell that by reading: what they theorized on I live/d. As to the underlining principles, we have St. John Chrysostom and others, including in many details St. Augustine.

At least our position is much closer to the spirit of the Fathers.
There are Fathers who held marriage in abhorrence, and those who held it in honor. Which one are you claiming, as the HV apologia depends on the former.

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

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

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

How about "orally consumated sex"?
The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively.
The mouth isn't evolved/desinged for speaking. And yet it does.

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

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

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

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

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

That's why I'm intrigued on how this has been inserted into the HV apologia, eg.
The fact of this change, introducing a distinction between ABC and NFP leads to some interesting eisogesis: from the same EWTN site:
Quote
Letter of Barnabas

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

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

Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.
I'll buy my bread from a baker. He couldn't even figure out conception as the beginning of life, something not only known by nature, but confirmed by revelation.

St. Jerome doesn't add that last part.
So?
So where did you get it?
I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ICXCNIKA on September 16, 2010, 02:53:14 PM

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

I for one do not find his points absurd nor his arguments sophomoric. It appears to me that he has easily defeated the weak arguments put forward by the Romans on this topic.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 16, 2010, 03:31:34 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you can help us out...eh?

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2010, 04:29:59 PM
I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.

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

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

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

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

Maybe you can help us out...eh?
IIRC, Papist brought up Aquinas and his views on semen.  He didn't quote him, but I did (but just on the issue of the transmission of original sin). Maybe he can give you more info on that subject, as you distrust me.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 16, 2010, 04:46:16 PM
I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2010, 07:21:16 PM
I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.


Don't play poker, so can't really respond.  Except that the ace of spades is not the ace of hearts. even I know that, and can't be told otherwise.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ICXCNIKA on September 16, 2010, 07:43:02 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you can help us out...eh?

M.
[/quote]

Mary,

I would love to help you out. Unfortunately I can't because it would go against the Laws of Nature.  ;)
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on September 16, 2010, 11:29:56 PM
I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.


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

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

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on October 05, 2010, 07:11:27 PM
Given the apologists equating eunuchs with birth control, I thought this, from St. Justin Martyr's Apology, interesting:
Quote
Chapter 29. Continence of Christians
And again [we fear to expose children], lest some of them be not picked up, but die, and we become murderers. But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently. And that you may understand that promiscuous intercourse is not one of our mysteries, one of our number a short time ago presented to Felix the governor in Alexandria a petition, craving that permission might be given to a surgeon to make him an eunuch. For the surgeons there said that they were forbidden to do this without the permission of the governor. And when Felix absolutely refused to sign such a permission, the youth remained single, and was satisfied with his own approving conscience, and the approval of those who thought as he did.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
It interesting that no disapproval is shown by the Christians: it is the pagan Felix who stops the Christian youth from obtaining castration.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on October 10, 2010, 09:41:22 PM
Using New Advent (an excellent site, although not to be used without discernment, of course), I came across this tidbit that reminded of this thread:

Quote
Do you know why Catholics don’t care about same-sex marriage?
“Polls conducted between July 21 and Sept. 6 found that a plurality of Catholics -- 46 percent to 42 percent -- approved of allowing gays and lesbians to marry,” reports Catholic News Service. Sacramento Bishop Jaime Soto provided a clue as to why so many Catholics aren’t opposed to same sex marriage in a column earlier this month. Excerpt (emphases mine):Another area where Catholics should do more reflection and cultivate new habits is in the sexual practice of marriage. One habit that has taken hold of many marriages is the use of artificial means of contraception. The prevalence of the practice in and outside of the Catholic community has made contraception the unquestioned default mode of marriage. As a consequence, sexuality and relationships are misunderstood and misused; and their true purpose is misplaced.
These comments are not just about the “pill” or other forms of contraceptives. This is more about the habit of using artificial means. The habit has shaped the hearts and minds of many, especially the young. Marriage is no longer understood as the covenant of love between a man and a woman that creates life, because procreation is no longer associated with sexual intercourse. In this new social situation, many shrug their shoulders and wonder why a sexual relationship between any two people who care for each other cannot be called a marriage.
http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2010/10/do-you-know-why-catholics-dont-care.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheCatholicKeyBlog+%28The+Catholic+Key+Blog%29

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

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

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

I remember reading "On Human Nature" in which he Wilson touches on an evolutionary argument for the usefulness of homosexuality, but then states he doesn't want to push it lest the science change and imperil homosexuals.  Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on October 10, 2010, 11:54:32 PM

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

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

Mary
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 06, 2010, 07:36:47 PM
I was reminded of this by this post
Quote
Does Orthodoxy allow contraception or not?
 
I'd be interested in reactions, especially from Orthodox believers, to the online article of the above title. At the very least, there appears to have been some backtracking in Orthodoxy on the topic. And as usual, there is the problem that nobody seems to speak for Orthodoxy as such.
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/

Interesting how we get a papal bull, citing SS Peter and Paul and hellfire ex cathedra and all, in Unam Sanctam, and yet we are told it does not speak for the Vatican. ::)
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 06, 2010, 09:00:35 PM
I was reminded of this by this post
Quote
Does Orthodoxy allow contraception or not?
 
I'd be interested in reactions, especially from Orthodox believers, to the online article of the above title. At the very least, there appears to have been some backtracking in Orthodoxy on the topic. And as usual, there is the problem that nobody seems to speak for Orthodoxy as such.
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/

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

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

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 06, 2010, 10:22:04 PM

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


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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 06, 2010, 10:44:12 PM

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I expect I know more conservative Orthodox priests because I am told that Orthodoxy used to teach against all forms of artificial birth control.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 06, 2010, 10:48:49 PM
I was reminded of this by this post
Quote
Does Orthodoxy allow contraception or not?
 
I'd be interested in reactions, especially from Orthodox believers, to the online article of the above title. At the very least, there appears to have been some backtracking in Orthodoxy on the topic. And as usual, there is the problem that nobody seems to speak for Orthodoxy as such.
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/

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

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

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.
No doubt those same "Orthodox" who tell you we are in the same church.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 06, 2010, 10:57:43 PM

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
I expect I know more conservative Orthodox priests because I am told that Orthodoxy used to teach against all forms of artificial birth control.
Told by those same "more conservative Orthodox priests" who tell you we are in the same church?

The ABC/NFP division is a recent innovation, one introduced by the Vatican in the 19th century.  The division abortifacient/non-abortifacient of old was determinative.  Most, however, left the details to pastoral counseling rather than dogmatic polemics, which, SUPRISE! is the same Orthodox attittude of the Catholic Church today.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 06, 2010, 11:04:46 PM

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

This is interesting
Quote
14. For although Christian spouses even if sanctified themselves cannot transmit sanctification to their progeny, nay, although the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity, nevertheless, they share to some extent in the blessings of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is theirs to offer their offspring to the Church in order that by this most fruitful Mother of the children of God they may be regenerated through the laver of Baptism unto supernatural justice and finally be made living members of Christ, partakers of immortal life, and heirs of that eternal glory to which we all aspire from our inmost heart.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 07, 2010, 11:33:42 AM
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

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

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 07, 2010, 11:41:00 AM
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

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


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

Orthodoxy existed before the Renaissance / Enlightenment (which inspired Galileo to reveal the Truth of Natural Law only to be imprisoned and have his works burned).
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 07, 2010, 11:55:08 AM
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

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


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

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

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

Nothing like good old historical revision to fill the poison ink well with the bitters of half truth.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 07, 2010, 12:11:47 PM
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

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

This is one of my favorite exaples of this:
Quote
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_contraception.htm
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=1703.30;wap2
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/contraception.htm
etc. Many drink from that same quote trough, and they all have the same generous use of the square brackets to try to hide the innovation of the Roman Penitentiary in 1853 on allowing the rhythm method, NFP so called.

St. John says
Quote
Let us then shake off this evil sleep, for if the day find us sleeping, a deathless death will succeed, and before that day we shall be open to the attacks of all the enemies that are of this world, both men and devils: and if they be minded to undo us, there is nobody to hinder them. For if there were many watching, then the danger would not be so great; since however, one perhaps there is, or two, who have lighted a candle, and would be as it were watching in the depth of night, while men were sleeping; therefore now we have need of much sleeplessness, much guardedness, to prevent our falling into the most irremediable evils. Does it not now seem to be broad daylight? Do we not think that all men are awake and sober? Yet still (and perhaps you will smile at what I say, still say it I will) we seem all of us like men sleeping and snoring in the depth of night. And if indeed an incorporeal being could be seen, I would show you how most men are snoring, and the devil breaking through walls, and butchering us as we lie, and stealing away the goods within, doing everything fearlessly, as if in profound darkness. Or rather, even if it be impossible to see this with our eyes, let us sketch it out in words, and consider how many have been weighed down by evil desires, how many held down by the sore evil of wantonness, and have quenched the light of the Spirit. Hence it comes that they see one thing instead of another, hear one thing instead of another, and take no notice of any of the things here told them. Or if I am mistaken in saying so, and you are awake, tell me what has been doing here this day, if you have not been hearing this as a dream. I am indeed aware that some can tell me (and I do not mean this of all); but do thou who comest under what has been said, who hast come here to no purpose, tell me what Prophet, what Apostle has been discoursing to us today? And on what subjects? And you would not have it in your power to tell me. For you have been talking a great deal here, just as in a dream, without hearing the realities. And this I would have said to the women too, as there is a great deal of sleeping among them. And would it were sleep! For he that is asleep says nothing either good or bad. But he that is awake as you are puts forth many a word even for mischief on his own head, telling his interest, casting up his creditor accounts, calling to memory some barefaced bargaining, planting the thorns thick in his own soul, and not letting the seed make even ever so little advance. But rouse yourself, and pull these thorns up by the roots, and shake the drunkenness off: for this is the cause of the sleep. But by drunkenness I mean, not that from wine only, but from worldly thoughts, and with them that from wine also. (See p. 443.) And this advice I am giving not to the rich only, but the poor too, and chiefly those that club together for social parties. For this is not really indulgence or relaxation, but punishment and vengeance. For indulgence lies not in speaking filthy things, but in talking solemnly, in being filled, not being ready to burst. But if you think this is pleasure, show me the pleasure by the evening! You can not! And hitherto I say nothing of the mischiefs it leads to, but at present have only been speaking to you of the pleasure that withers away so quickly. For the party is no sooner broken up, than all that went for mirth is flown away. But when I come to mention the spewing, and the headaches, and the numberless disorders, and the soul's captivity, what have you to say to all this? Have we any business, because we are poor, to behave ourselves unseemly too? And in saying this I do not forbid your meeting together, or taking your suppers at a common table, but to prevent your behaving unseemly, and as wishing indulgence to be really indulgence, and not a punishment, nor a vengeance, or drunkenness and revelling. Let the Gentiles (ἑ λληνες) see that Christians know best how to indulge, and to indulge in an orderly way. For it says, Rejoice in the Lord with trembling. Psalm 2:11 But how then can one rejoice? Why, by saying hymns, making prayers, introducing psalms in the place of those low songs. Thus will Christ also be at our table, and will fill the whole feast with blessing, when you pray, when you sing spiritual songs, when you invite the poor to partake of what is set before you, when you set much orderliness and temperance over the feast. So you will make the party a Church, by hymning, in the room of ill-timed shouts and cheers, the Master of all things. And tell me not, that another custom has come to prevail, but correct what is thus amiss. For whether you eat, it says, or whether ye drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31 For from banquets of that sort you have evil desires, and impurities, and wives come to be in disrepute, and harlots in honor among you. Hence come the upsetting of families and evils unnumbered, and all things are turned upside down, and you have left the pure fountain, and run to the conduit of mire. For that an harlot's body is mire, I do not enquire of any one else but of your own self that wallowest in the mire, if you dost not feel ashamed of yourself, if you dost not think yourself unclean after the sin is over. Wherefore I beseech you flee fornication, and the mother of it, drunkenness. Why sow where reaping is impossible, or rather even if you dost reap, the fruit brings you great shame? For even if a child be born, it at once disgraces yourself, and has itself had injustice done it in being born through you illegitimate and base. And if you leave it never so much money, both the son of an harlot, and that of a servant-maid, is disreputable at home, disreputable in the city, disreputable in a court of law: disreputable too will you be also, both in your lifetime, and when dead. For if you have departed even, the memorials of your unseemliness abide. Why then bring disgrace upon all these? Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon your head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is yours. Hence too come idolatries, since many, with a view to become acceptable, devise incantations, and libations, and love-potions, and countless other plans. Yet still after such great unseemliness, after slaughters, after idolatries, the thing seems to many to belong to things indifferent, aye, and to many that have wives too. Whence the mingle (φορυτὸς) of mischief is the greater. For sorceries are applied not to the womb that is prostituted, but to the injured wife, and there are plottings without number, and invocations of devils, and necromancies, and daily wars, and truceless fightings, and home-cherished jealousies. Wherefore also Paul, after saying, not in chamberings and wantonness, proceeds, not in strife and envying, as knowing the wars that result therefrom; the upsetting of families, the wrongs done to legitimate children, the other ills unnumbered. That we may then escape from all these, let us put on Christ, and be with Him continually. For this is what putting Him on is; never being without Him, having Him evermore visible in us, through our sanctification, through our moderation. So we say of friends, such an one is wrapped up (ἐ νεδύσατο) in such another, meaning their great love, and keeping together incessantly. For he that is wrapped up in anything, seems to be that which he is wrapped in. Let then Christ be seen in every part of us. And how is He to be seen? If you do His deeds. And what did He do? The Son of Man, He says, has not where to lay His head. Luke 9:58 This do thou also aim after. He needed the use of food, and He fared upon barley loaves. He had occasion to travel, and there were no horses or beast of burden anywhere, but He walked so far as even to be weary. He had need of sleep, and He lay asleep upon the pillow in the fore (πρύμνῃ, here πρώρας) part of the ship. Mark 4:38 There was occasion for sitting down to meat, and He bade them lie down upon the grass. And His garments were cheap; and often He stayed alone, with no train after Him. And what He did on the Cross, and what amidst the insults, and all, in a word, that He did, do thou learn by heart (καταμαθὼν) and imitate. And so will you have put on Christ, if you make no provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof. For the thing has no real pleasure, since these lusts gender again others more keen, and you will never find satisfaction, but wilt only make you one great torment. For as one who is in a continual thirst, even if he have ten thousand fountains hard by him, gets no good from this, as he is not able to extinguish the disorder, so is he that lives continually in lusts. But if you keep to what is necessary, you will never come to have this fear, but all those things will go away, as well drunkenness as wantonness. Eat then only so much as to break your hunger, have only so much upon you as to be sheltered, and do not curiously deck your flesh with clothing, lest you ruin it. For you will make it more delicate, and wilt do injury to its healthfulness, by unnerving it with so much softness. That you may have it then a meet vehicle for the soul, that the helmsman may be securely seated over the rudder, and the soldier handle his arms with ease, you must make all parts to be fitly framed together. For it is not the having much, but requiring little, that keeps us from being injured. For the one man is afraid even if he is not wronged: this other, even if he be wronged, is in better case than those that have not been wronged, and even for this very thing is in the better spirits. Let the object of our search be then, not how we can keep any one from using us spitefully, but how even if he wish to do it, he may be without the power. And this there is no other source whence to obtain, save by keeping to necessaries, and not coveting anything more. For in this way we shall be able to enjoy ourselves here, and shall attain to the good things to come, by the grace and love toward man, etc.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.xxvi.html

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

I'll be posting a thread, Lord willing, about the Vatican's dependence on natural law as revelation fails to support its views.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 07, 2010, 12:13:48 PM
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

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


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

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

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

Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

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

I'll take your word on that.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 07, 2010, 01:08:19 PM

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

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

Don't want to miss that!!
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 07, 2010, 01:11:17 PM

Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.


In reality the Catholic Church has recognized the sanctity of those patristic Fathers who used Aristotelian concepts in their theology.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Schultz on November 07, 2010, 01:28:25 PM
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

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


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

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

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

Kind of like how on this board people are often censured for the rhetoric they employ instead of the substance of the points.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 07, 2010, 01:33:04 PM
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

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


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

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

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

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

I was going to make the distinction that Copernicus' work spanned the Reformation and Galileo was post-Reformation; however, thanks for clarifying how the Catholic Church handled Galileo.   :)
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 07, 2010, 02:35:59 PM
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

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


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

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

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

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

Good for you!! On the substantive side.

But it is also a lesson in how attitude cannot always be separated from substance and in itself becomes transformative of substance.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 07, 2010, 04:11:51 PM
Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

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

Quote
No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Too bad the Vatican and its scholastics didn't take St. John's sage advice.

On the subject at hand, Aristotle helped neither theology nor biology, but the Vatican continues to perpetuate reliance on him for both
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 07, 2010, 06:13:04 PM
Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

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

Quote
No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Too bad the Vatican and its scholastics didn't take St. John's sage advice.

On the subject at hand, Aristotle helped neither theology nor biology, but the Vatican continues to perpetuate reliance on him for both

Aristotle had an immense impact on several of the more influential patristic Fathers so your comments are not at all on point.

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 07, 2010, 06:52:19 PM
Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

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

Quote
No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Too bad the Vatican and its scholastics didn't take St. John's sage advice.

On the subject at hand, Aristotle helped neither theology nor biology, but the Vatican continues to perpetuate reliance on him for both

Aristotle had an immense impact on several of the more influential patristic Fathers so your comments are not at all on point.
But he had no impact on any of the Law, Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, so your comments are not at all on point.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 07, 2010, 07:01:16 PM
Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

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

Quote
No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Too bad the Vatican and its scholastics didn't take St. John's sage advice.

On the subject at hand, Aristotle helped neither theology nor biology, but the Vatican continues to perpetuate reliance on him for both

Aristotle had an immense impact on several of the more influential patristic Fathers so your comments are not at all on point.
But he had no impact on any of the Law, Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, so your comments are not at all on point.

He did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 07, 2010, 07:29:44 PM
Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

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

Quote
No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Too bad the Vatican and its scholastics didn't take St. John's sage advice.

On the subject at hand, Aristotle helped neither theology nor biology, but the Vatican continues to perpetuate reliance on him for both

Aristotle had an immense impact on several of the more influential patristic Fathers so your comments are not at all on point.
But he had no impact on any of the Law, Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, so your comments are not at all on point.

He did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.
I am neither unaware nor have I denied that. But neither do I hold that a sperm carries a homumculus, nor that the sun runs around the earth, nor that souls are reincarnated, etc. and so I do hold theological, dogmatic, moral, etc. based on those positions.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 07, 2010, 09:33:24 PM
He [Aristotle] did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

Why don't you enlighten us "modernist Orthodox" by showing us where Aristotle and Plato impacted the articulation of Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox spirituality and Orthodox theology?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 07, 2010, 09:39:21 PM
He [Aristotle] did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

Why don't you enlighten us "modernist Orthodox" by showing us where Aristotle and Plato impacted the articulation of Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox spirituality and Orthodox theology?

Why?  Is it really of any importance to you?  Somewhere on the Internet there's a list of patristic Fathers who were influenced by Aristotle;  I am certain I've seen several articles by Catholics and maybe one or two by Orthodox authors.  Why should I go out and find them if only to have you all mock me?  I'm from Oz...remember?

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 07, 2010, 09:49:52 PM
He [Aristotle] did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

Why don't you enlighten us "modernist Orthodox" by showing us where Aristotle and Plato impacted the articulation of Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox spirituality and Orthodox theology?

Why?  Is it really of any importance to you?

You asserted that Aristotle had an impact.  You also asserted that "modernist Orthodox" do not know or admit to Aristotle's influence.  Show us where Aristotle had such influence.

Somewhere on the Internet there's a list of patristic Fathers who were influenced by Aristotle;  I am certain I've seen several articles by Catholics and maybe one or two by Orthodox authors.  Why should I go out and find them if only to have you all mock me?  I'm from Oz...remember?

Now, I haven't mocked you; I'm different from the others.   ;)

BTW, there are very beautiful Greek Catholic Churches in my part of the world that I've never visited.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on November 07, 2010, 10:29:47 PM
He [Aristotle] did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

Why don't you enlighten us "modernist Orthodox" by showing us where Aristotle and Plato impacted the articulation of Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox spirituality and Orthodox theology?

Why?  Is it really of any importance to you?

You asserted that Aristotle had an impact.  You also asserted that "modernist Orthodox" do not know or admit to Aristotle's influence.  Show us where Aristotle had such influence.

Somewhere on the Internet there's a list of patristic Fathers who were influenced by Aristotle;  I am certain I've seen several articles by Catholics and maybe one or two by Orthodox authors.  Why should I go out and find them if only to have you all mock me?  I'm from Oz...remember?

Now, I haven't mocked you; I'm different from the others.   ;)

BTW, there are very beautiful Greek Catholic Churches in my part of the world that I've never visited.
Here is an article from the Jacques Maritain Center on Aristotle and the Christian Church. It seems like Aristotle might have been more influential in the west than the East. Anyway, in chapter 5 of the article, it states that: "The early Greek Fathers, as a rule, deal more universally with Plato than with Aristotle. The numerous heresies that spring up in the fertile brain of the Greeks and the Syrians, find in the Aristotelian philosophy a basis on which to support their peculiar views; and the more they attach themselves to Aristotle, the more the Catholics become shy of him."
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/aatcc.htm
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 07, 2010, 10:42:46 PM
He [Aristotle] did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

Why don't you enlighten us "modernist Orthodox" by showing us where Aristotle and Plato impacted the articulation of Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox spirituality and Orthodox theology?

Why?  Is it really of any importance to you?

You asserted that Aristotle had an impact.  You also asserted that "modernist Orthodox" do not know or admit to Aristotle's influence.  Show us where Aristotle had such influence.

Somewhere on the Internet there's a list of patristic Fathers who were influenced by Aristotle;  I am certain I've seen several articles by Catholics and maybe one or two by Orthodox authors.  Why should I go out and find them if only to have you all mock me?  I'm from Oz...remember?

Now, I haven't mocked you; I'm different from the others.   ;)

BTW, there are very beautiful Greek Catholic Churches in my part of the world that I've never visited.
Here is an article from the Jacques Maritain Center on Aristotle and the Christian Church. It seems like Aristotle might have been more influential in the west than the East. Anyway, in chapter 5 of the article, it states that: "The early Greek Fathers, as a rule, deal more universally with Plato than with Aristotle. The numerous heresies that spring up in the fertile brain of the Greeks and the Syrians, find in the Aristotelian philosophy a basis on which to support their peculiar views; and the more they attach themselves to Aristotle, the more the Catholics become shy of him."
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/aatcc.htm

Thank you.   :)  Quoting from the home page:

Quote
It shows very industrious and extensive research, and is full of interest to Catholic students. The supremacy of Aristotle in the intellectual world of nature, and that of St. Thomas in the illumination of faith, are the two great lights of natural and supernatural truth. From the time of St. Edmund, who brought the study of Aristotle from Paris to Oxford, the tradition of study at Oxford rested on Aristotle and Faith. Now it has wandered to the world of Rationalism, which Aristotle and St. Thomas purified.

Your book will be very useful in recalling students to the world-wide philosophy of the Catholic Church. I wish you all blessings in your studies.

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?   ???

Edited for Content
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Shlomlokh on November 07, 2010, 10:46:36 PM
I think with the RCC's "development of doctrine" Birth Control will be allowable within a few generations. I think it was Fr. Ambrose that pointed out the contradiction in current RCC teaching on the subject and how it doesn't jive with Casti Conubii (sp?). Why would that be so impossible for the RCC?

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 07, 2010, 10:56:02 PM

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?   ???

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 07, 2010, 11:06:58 PM
I just know all you clever fellows could have found this source if you'd really tried...dontcha think?  I mean really!!...don't you think?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx

Quote
Father Florovsky has also placed great emphasis in his writings on another essential area of concern which highlights the differences between the Hellenistic philosophers and the Greek Fathers: human personhood. [17] Here, especially, we see that Hellenistic philosophical terms and categories are radically transformed in their Patristic usage. In fact, the Greek Patristic concept of personality is a uniquely Christian contribution to the history of thought. As Florovsky notes, in their understanding of the relationship between the human soul and the body, the Greek Fathers were actually closer to Aristotle than to Plato. [18] Prima facie, this appears strange, since, strictly speaking, Aristotelian anthropology and cosmology make no claims for life after death: nothing human passes beyond the grave, and man's singular being does not survive death. Nonetheless, Father Florovsky argues that Aristotle understood the unity of human existence, of the body and soul, at an intuitive level. Aristotle understood better than any of the Greek philosophers the empirical wholeness of human existence, and thus empirical existence and the human personality took on an importance for him that could not be detached from the eternal elements of the soul. And so he discounted the idea of a transmigration of souls to other bodies, in that he could not free himself from a compelling respect for the unity of these two elements of the human person. He never came to attribute permanence or an immortal dimension to the person, but the foundations for such an attribution are everywhere to be found in his thought.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 07, 2010, 11:17:26 PM
I think with the RCC's "development of doctrine" Birth Control will be allowable within a few generations. I think it was Fr. Ambrose that pointed out the contradiction in current RCC teaching on the subject and how it doesn't jive with Casti Conubii (sp?). Why would that be so impossible for the RCC?

Casti Connubii. It wouldn't. Neither it nor HV is admitted (when you press them) as ex cathedra.

Now I know that they will say "Ordinary and universal teaching of the Church...full assent of faith...infallible...blah..blah...blah." When did we see "Bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with Pope." I'd say the CCC, but when pressed on that, they deny that they hold CCC as infallible.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30177.0.html
Ipso facto, not the "Bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with Pope."

Showing yet again their magisterium with all its levels degrees of theological certitude is pretty much a useless concept, as it fails to deliver on its claims.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 07, 2010, 11:22:17 PM
I just know all you clever fellows could have found this source if you'd really tried...dontcha think?  I mean really!!...don't you think?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx

Quote
Father Florovsky has also placed great emphasis in his writings on another essential area of concern which highlights the differences between the Hellenistic philosophers and the Greek Fathers: human personhood. [17] Here, especially, we see that Hellenistic philosophical terms and categories are radically transformed in their Patristic usage. In fact, the Greek Patristic concept of personality is a uniquely Christian contribution to the history of thought. As Florovsky notes, in their understanding of the relationship between the human soul and the body, the Greek Fathers were actually closer to Aristotle than to Plato. [18] Prima facie, this appears strange, since, strictly speaking, Aristotelian anthropology and cosmology make no claims for life after death: nothing human passes beyond the grave, and man's singular being does not survive death. Nonetheless, Father Florovsky argues that Aristotle understood the unity of human existence, of the body and soul, at an intuitive level. Aristotle understood better than any of the Greek philosophers the empirical wholeness of human existence, and thus empirical existence and the human personality took on an importance for him that could not be detached from the eternal elements of the soul. And so he discounted the idea of a transmigration of souls to other bodies, in that he could not free himself from a compelling respect for the unity of these two elements of the human person. He never came to attribute permanence or an immortal dimension to the person, but the foundations for such an attribution are everywhere to be found in his thought.
What Ariistlotle didn't understand the Law, Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists taught us.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on November 08, 2010, 12:33:35 AM
I just know all you clever fellows could have found this source if you'd really tried...dontcha think?  I mean really!!...don't you think?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx

Quote
Father Florovsky has also placed great emphasis in his writings on another essential area of concern which highlights the differences between the Hellenistic philosophers and the Greek Fathers: human personhood. [17] Here, especially, we see that Hellenistic philosophical terms and categories are radically transformed in their Patristic usage. In fact, the Greek Patristic concept of personality is a uniquely Christian contribution to the history of thought. As Florovsky notes, in their understanding of the relationship between the human soul and the body, the Greek Fathers were actually closer to Aristotle than to Plato. [18] Prima facie, this appears strange, since, strictly speaking, Aristotelian anthropology and cosmology make no claims for life after death: nothing human passes beyond the grave, and man's singular being does not survive death. Nonetheless, Father Florovsky argues that Aristotle understood the unity of human existence, of the body and soul, at an intuitive level. Aristotle understood better than any of the Greek philosophers the empirical wholeness of human existence, and thus empirical existence and the human personality took on an importance for him that could not be detached from the eternal elements of the soul. And so he discounted the idea of a transmigration of souls to other bodies, in that he could not free himself from a compelling respect for the unity of these two elements of the human person. He never came to attribute permanence or an immortal dimension to the person, but the foundations for such an attribution are everywhere to be found in his thought.
Thanks for this reference and discussion. Here it says that according to Father Florovsky: " ... in their understanding of the relationship between the human soul and the body, the Greek Fathers were actually closer to Aristotle than to Plato."
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 08, 2010, 12:57:44 AM
I just know all you clever fellows could have found this source if you'd really tried...dontcha think?  I mean really!!...don't you think?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx

Gee, I wished you had found something more academic, tsk, tsk, tsk....  From the last sentences of the above link:

Quote
Only the most superficial or polemical observer, even from such a cursory treatment as our present one, can truly argue that the Greek Fathers were anything but seekers after old bottles for new wine, readily and acutely conscious that, lest the new wine be spoiled in these old vessels, they had to cleanse and purify them of their former content. Such is a proper image of the Greek Fathers as they undertook to use, transform, and remold Hellenistic thought.

The Apostle Paul didn't convince many of the "men of Athens" since they believed in the "old wine" of the Hellenistic Age, but Paul's successors surely transformed the "old wine" for the "new wineskins" only for the Renaissance/Enlightenment inspired Vatican to go back in time....
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 08, 2010, 12:59:24 AM

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?   ???

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

The bolded question wasn't answered; so you claim that the Greek Catholics have resisted Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals contrary to what the Vatican has taught over the last 5-7 Centuries?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 08:03:04 AM

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?   ???

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

The bolded question wasn't answered; so you claim that the Greek Catholics have resisted Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals contrary to what the Vatican has taught over the last 5-7 Centuries?

Bluntly stated, you have not one small clue about what you are talking about, and I am not going to take the time to even try to enlighten you.  With your closed mind and in the darkness of historical ignorance and ignorance of the sources of Catholic doctrine, it would be a solid waste of my time at this moment to try to air out the house with a dose of reality.

I will give you this much:  Catholic doctrine is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching.   It does not come from the secular teachings of professional theologians, although that is what I find many Orthodox actually think...or feel more aptly put.  That fact you can see by checking the sources in the CCC and in any systematic theology book that lists the sources for various doctrines and theologies systematically, so much of the very most basic work you can in fact do on your own.

When I have ready resources to make my points briefly and succinctly as I just did with Aristotle and the patristic Fathers, I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

In Christ,

Mary
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 08, 2010, 10:13:45 AM

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?   ???

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

The bolded question wasn't answered; so you claim that the Greek Catholics have resisted Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals contrary to what the Vatican has taught over the last 5-7 Centuries?

Bluntly stated, you have not one small clue about what you are talking about, and I am not going to take the time to even try to enlighten you.
(http://sewstorebought.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/moses-ten-commandments.jpg)

Quote
With your closed mind and in the darkness of historical ignorance and ignorance of the sources of Catholic doctrine, it would be a solid waste of my time at this moment to try to air out the house with a dose of reality.
This ought to be interesting.

Quote
I will give you this much:  Catholic doctrine is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching.   It does not come from the secular teachings of professional theologians, although that is what I find many Orthodox actually think
How about the religious teachings of professional theologians?
Quote
The famous Duns Scotus (d. 1308) at last (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries) laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed. He showed that the sanctification after animation — sanctificatio post animationem — demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis); he removed the great difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin. He also brought forward, by way of illustration, the somewhat dangerous and doubtful argument of Eadmer (S. Anselm) "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit." [He should do it, He could do it, therefore He  did it].

From the time of Scotus not only did the doctrine become the common opinion at the universities, but the feast spread widely to those countries where it had not been previously adopted... In 1439 the dispute was brought before the Council of Basle where the University of Paris, formerly opposed to the doctrine, proved to be its most ardent advocate, asking for a dogmatical definition...As the council at the time was not ecumenical, it could not pronounce with authority [actyally, according to the Vatican's definition and rules at the time it was, but the Vatican found it inconvenient, like Constantinople IV 879, and dropped it from its list]....Whilst these disputes went on, the great universities and almost all the great orders had become so many bulwarks for the defense of the dogma. In 1497 the University of Paris decreed that henceforward no one should be admitted a member of the university, who did not swear that he would do the utmost to defend and assert the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Toulouse followed the example; in Italy, Bologna and Naples; in the German Empire, Cologne, Maine, and Vienna; in Belgium, Louvain; in England before the Reformation. Oxford and Cambridge; in Spain Salamanca, Toledo, Seville, and Valencia; in Portugal, Coimbra and Evora; in America, Mexico and Lima...

and yet another heresy became a dogma for the Vatican.

Quote
...or feel more aptly put.

Vatican II.

Quote
That fact you can see by checking the sources in the CCC and in any systematic theology book that lists the sources for various doctrines and theologies systematically, so much of the very most basic work you can in fact do on your own.

You can't do that for Humanae Vitae, the topic at hand.

Quote
When I have ready resources to make my points briefly and succinctly as I just did with Aristotle and the patristic Fathers,

Your point is misdirected.

Quote
I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

LOL. Spoken like a supreme pontiff from the cathedra.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 10:48:39 AM

Quote
I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

LOL. Spoken like a supreme pontiff from the cathedra.

Thank you!!

You provide ample evidence for why I took the position I did in my refusal.

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 08, 2010, 11:01:27 AM

Quote
I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

LOL. Spoken like a supreme pontiff from the cathedra.

Thank you!!

You provide ample evidence for why I took the position I did in my refusal.
and your refusal provides ample evidence to ignore the assertions behind the posts
(http://www.granitegrok.com/pix/Man%20behind%20the%20curtain.jpg)
let's not forget your magisterium
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_seVd99frSks/S-C5tyfPCsI/AAAAAAAAAss/NVOLKZGkRgI/s1600/wizard-of-oz.jpg)
infallibility by smoke and mirrors.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 11:05:09 AM
Again you emphasize your openness to dialogue, insipid rather than inspiring.



Quote
I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

LOL. Spoken like a supreme pontiff from the cathedra.

Thank you!!

You provide ample evidence for why I took the position I did in my refusal.
and your refusal provides ample evidence to ignore the assertions behind the posts
(http://www.granitegrok.com/pix/Man%20behind%20the%20curtain.jpg)
let's not forget your magisterium
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_seVd99frSks/S-C5tyfPCsI/AAAAAAAAAss/NVOLKZGkRgI/s1600/wizard-of-oz.jpg)
infallibility by smoke and mirrors.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 08, 2010, 11:13:39 AM
Again you emphasize your openness to dialogue, insipid rather than inspiring.

No, I emphasize my steadfastness to dogma.
a Romanian Orthodox priest invited a Roman Catholic priest to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy of Pentecost.


I read the news that the priest was deposed from priesthood by his bishop, for this co-celebration with a romano-catholic.
Amen! Amen! Amen!
That's why you find it less than inspiring in this insipid I-don't-want-to-waste-time-to-defend-my-assertions.

Speaking of "dialogue," at Florence the Latins expressed the exasperation that the bishops that did come would have nothing of Aristotle ("a fig for your Aristotle!") and merely would repeat quotations from the Fathers.  The Latins also expressed dismay that Bp. Mark Eugenios i.e. St. Mark of Ephesus, was the only one whose learning impressed the products of the Latin universities.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 11:19:19 AM
Again you emphasize your openness to dialogue, insipid rather than inspiring.

No, I emphasize my steadfastness to dogma.

I never worry about your steadfastness to dogma.

I strongly question your knowledge of Catholic teaching, and I question your knowledge of anything but a very narrow view of Orthodox teaching.

And so I see you not as dogmatic but as doctrinaire and in that way you are impossible to talk to except at a very superficial and generally very nasty level.

That is what is insipid rather than inspiring.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 08, 2010, 11:31:43 AM
Again you emphasize your openness to dialogue, insipid rather than inspiring.

No, I emphasize my steadfastness to dogma.

I never worry about your steadfastness to dogma.

I strongly question your knowledge of Catholic teaching, and I question your knowledge of anything but a very narrow view of Orthodox teaching.

I provide plenty of documenation, links etc. Anyone can follow up.  Unlike you, I name names.

Quote
And so I see you not as dogmatic but as doctrinaire

Readers can see for themselves.

Quote
and in that way you are impossible to talk to except at a very superficial and generally very nasty level.

Only for those for whom words have no meaning.

Quote
That is what is insipid rather than inspiring.
Depends on what you're selling. We have no need of natural law, and hence won't be buying it no matter how aggressive the marketing.  Hence we don't overlook the basis of Humanae Vitae, and how it got there.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 11:54:52 AM
Depends on what you're selling. We have no need of natural law, and hence won't be buying it no matter how aggressive the marketing.  Hence we don't overlook the basis of Humanae Vitae, and how it got there.

You'd have to elevate your explanations to the level of convincing, for how you come to this odd assertion, before it is more than just an odd assertion.  But you don't explain things you just point and grunt.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 08, 2010, 07:59:55 PM

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?   ???

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

The bolded question wasn't answered; so you claim that the Greek Catholics have resisted Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals contrary to what the Vatican has taught over the last 5-7 Centuries?

Bluntly stated, you have not one small clue about what you are talking about,

You have adopted the majority view here ... at least I know that the sentiments do not change across Religious Jurisdictions.   ;)

and I am not going to take the time to even try to enlighten you.  With your closed mind and in the darkness of historical ignorance and ignorance of the sources of Catholic doctrine, it would be a solid waste of my time at this moment to try to air out the house with a dose of reality.

I wouldn't want you to waste your time.  You won't take direction from us; why should you enlighten us?

I will give you this much:  Catholic doctrine is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching.   It does not come from the secular teachings of professional theologians, although that is what I find many Orthodox actually think...or feel more aptly put.  That fact you can see by checking the sources in the CCC and in any systematic theology book that lists the sources for various doctrines and theologies systematically, so much of the very most basic work you can in fact do on your own.

We're still waiting with bated breath for how Humanae Vitae was derived from the bolded text.  Frankly, you can't.

When I have ready resources to make my points briefly and succinctly as I just did with Aristotle and the patristic Fathers, I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way

No false assertions were made.  You can't explain if Greek Catholics have resisted the Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals which have permeated the Vatican.

...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

You have a life.  So do we.  There are more important things in life than this stuff; however, if you're going to defend Roman Catholicism on Humanae Vitae even though you look Eastern Orthodox, act Eastern Orthodox and are not Eastern Orthodox, you better be prepared to explain your point in a way that the Orthodox can understand.  If we don't understand, don't be so hard on yourself.   :police: 

If you can't ... say, "I don't know" and we'll pick another windmill to tilt at....
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 08:11:09 PM

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?   ???

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

The bolded question wasn't answered; so you claim that the Greek Catholics have resisted Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals contrary to what the Vatican has taught over the last 5-7 Centuries?

Bluntly stated, you have not one small clue about what you are talking about,

You have adopted the majority view here ... at least I know that the sentiments do not change across Religious Jurisdictions.   ;)

and I am not going to take the time to even try to enlighten you.  With your closed mind and in the darkness of historical ignorance and ignorance of the sources of Catholic doctrine, it would be a solid waste of my time at this moment to try to air out the house with a dose of reality.

I wouldn't want you to waste your time.  You won't take direction from us; why should you enlighten us?

I will give you this much:  Catholic doctrine is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching.   It does not come from the secular teachings of professional theologians, although that is what I find many Orthodox actually think...or feel more aptly put.  That fact you can see by checking the sources in the CCC and in any systematic theology book that lists the sources for various doctrines and theologies systematically, so much of the very most basic work you can in fact do on your own.

We're still waiting with bated breath for how Humanae Vitae was derived from the bolded text.  Frankly, you can't.

When I have ready resources to make my points briefly and succinctly as I just did with Aristotle and the patristic Fathers, I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way

No false assertions were made.  You can't explain if Greek Catholics have resisted the Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals which have permeated the Vatican.

...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

You have a life.  So do we.  There are more important things in life than this stuff; however, if you're going to defend Roman Catholicism on Humanae Vitae even though you look Eastern Orthodox, act Eastern Orthodox and are not Eastern Orthodox, you better be prepared to explain your point in a way that the Orthodox can understand.  If we don't understand, don't be so hard on yourself.   :police: 

If you can't ... say, "I don't know" and we'll pick another windmill to tilt at....

I've been beaten by a well tempered instrument!!  I yield.   I give up!!  I'll spend more time on it!!  Maybe I'll have something useful to say and maybe not but you have made my day!!...no...my year!!  How could I have been so hard of heart?

Thank you.

Now what was the question again because I feel slightly off track here...Help me find a direction, please.

M.
Title: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: SolEX01 on November 08, 2010, 08:25:15 PM
I've been beaten by a well tempered instrument!!  I yield.   I give up!!  I'll spend more time on it!!  Maybe I'll have something useful to say and maybe not but you have made my day!!...no...my year!!  How could I have been so hard of heart?

Thank you.

Now what was the question again because I feel slightly off track here...Help me find a direction, please.

redacted
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 08:34:28 PM
I've been beaten by a well tempered instrument!!  I yield.   I give up!!  I'll spend more time on it!!  Maybe I'll have something useful to say and maybe not but you have made my day!!...no...my year!!  How could I have been so hard of heart?

Thank you.

Now what was the question again because I feel slightly off track here...Help me find a direction, please.

The above is a perfect textbook example on how to express sarcasm on the Internet.  I've learned so much from you.   ::)  You've made my millennium.   ::)

God Bless You!

Oh...I didn't see that one coming.  That one hurt actually.  I was being sincere.

Fool me once, shame on me

Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: SolEX01 on November 08, 2010, 08:39:28 PM
I've been beaten by a well tempered instrument!!  I yield.   I give up!!  I'll spend more time on it!!  Maybe I'll have something useful to say and maybe not but you have made my day!!...no...my year!!  How could I have been so hard of heart?

Thank you.

Now what was the question again because I feel slightly off track here...Help me find a direction, please.

The above is a perfect textbook example on how to express sarcasm on the Internet.  I've learned so much from you.   ::)  You've made my millennium.   ::)

God Bless You!

Oh...I didn't see that one coming.  That one hurt actually.  I was being sincere.

Fool me once, shame on me

That's why sarcasm is a dangerous thing to use on Internet because the words do not convey facial expressions, emotions, etc. 

Now, I'm sorry and I ask for your forgiveness.   :angel:  There are two things to discuss:

1.  Support for Humanae Vitae based on Catholic doctrine which is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching

2.  Whether Greek Catholics have resisted the Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals which have permeated the Vatican.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 08, 2010, 08:40:18 PM
Depends on what you're selling. We have no need of natural law, and hence won't be buying it no matter how aggressive the marketing.  Hence we don't overlook the basis of Humanae Vitae, and how it got there.

You'd have to elevate your explanations to the level of convincing, for how you come to this odd assertion, before it is more than just an odd assertion.  But you don't explain things you just point and grunt.
no, I cite and link.
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 08:54:27 PM
I've been beaten by a well tempered instrument!!  I yield.   I give up!!  I'll spend more time on it!!  Maybe I'll have something useful to say and maybe not but you have made my day!!...no...my year!!  How could I have been so hard of heart?

Thank you.

Now what was the question again because I feel slightly off track here...Help me find a direction, please.

The above is a perfect textbook example on how to express sarcasm on the Internet.  I've learned so much from you.   ::)  You've made my millennium.   ::)

God Bless You!

Oh...I didn't see that one coming.  That one hurt actually.  I was being sincere.

Fool me once, shame on me

That's why sarcasm is a dangerous thing to use on Internet because the words do not convey facial expressions, emotions, etc. 

Now, I'm sorry and I ask for your forgiveness.   :angel:  There are two things to discuss:

1.  Support for Humanae Vitae based on Catholic doctrine which is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching

2.  Whether Greek Catholics have resisted the Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals which have permeated the Vatican.

Sure.  We'll get on track now.  :)  I tend to be sharp sometimes but try not to be sarcastic.  Thanks much!!

I can say that the Catholic Church of the west,  in general,  develops the language of her doctrine using the writings of her saints and doctors before using any secular theologians and schoolmen.   Not even Duns Scotus was really necessary for the dogmatic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception.  Protestant theology is far more attuned to her Schoolmen than the Catholic Church in terms of actual doctrinal formulations.

The encyclical letter Humanae Vitae is a unique statement and synthesis.  It is to be obeyed but it has yet to be distilled into any kind of dogmatic statement.  But that is not unusual for moral teachings...in the Catholic Church.  There are so many pastoral aspects to such a teaching that it is best not to lock it in to some kind of rigid statement of truth.

Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: SolEX01 on November 08, 2010, 09:04:08 PM
Sure.  We'll get on track now.  :)  I tend to be sharp sometimes but try not to be sarcastic.  Thanks much!!

I strive to get along with everyone on this board.  No hard feelings? 

I can say that the Catholic Church of the west,  in general,  develops the language of her doctrine using the writings of her saints and doctors before using any secular theologians and schoolmen.   Not even Duns Scotus was really necessary for the dogmatic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception.

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

Protestant theology is far more attuned to her Schoolmen than the Catholic Church in terms of actual doctrinal formulations.

Can you see that Schoolmen can lead to arbitrary, man-made belief systems like Bible Inerrancy?

The encyclical letter Humanae Vitae is a unique statement and synthesis.  It is to be obeyed but it has yet to be distilled into any kind of dogmatic statement. 

A speed limit is a dogmatic statement which goes unobeyed every day.  If you're caught, you receive a ticket and pay a fine and life goes on.  If you don't obey Humanae Vitae, do you go to Hell?

But that is not unusual for moral teachings...in the Catholic Church.  There are so many pastoral aspects to such a teaching that it is best not to lock it in to some kind of rigid statement of truth.

But what if the pastoral teaching mandates obedience to the above dogmatic statement?  At least in the Orthodox Church, a Priest has no dogmatic statement which requires mandatory adherence and tailors his guidance to fit the circumstances of the individual (e.g. oikonomia or Economy).
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: Papist on November 08, 2010, 09:12:51 PM


I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?


The Divine Liturgy
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 08, 2010, 09:30:51 PM
How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?

I do not know that they did. Certainly many became Latinized as they trained in Latin seminaries, but this affected the Basilians much more than married clergy who stayed close to their roots.
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 09:31:54 PM

I strive to get along with everyone on this board.  No hard feelings?  


I can say that the Catholic Church of the west,  in general,  develops the language of her doctrine using the writings of her saints and doctors before using any secular theologians and schoolmen.   Not even Duns Scotus was really necessary for the dogmatic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception.

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

Protestant theology is far more attuned to her Schoolmen than the Catholic Church in terms of actual doctrinal formulations.

Can you see that Schoolmen can lead to arbitrary, man-made belief systems like Bible Inerrancy?

The encyclical letter Humanae Vitae is a unique statement and synthesis.  It is to be obeyed but it has yet to be distilled into any kind of dogmatic statement.  

A speed limit is a dogmatic statement which goes unobeyed every day.  If you're caught, you receive a ticket and pay a fine and life goes on.  If you don't obey Humanae Vitae, do you go to Hell?

But that is not unusual for moral teachings...in the Catholic Church.  There are so many pastoral aspects to such a teaching that it is best not to lock it in to some kind of rigid statement of truth.

But what if the pastoral teaching mandates obedience to the above dogmatic statement?  At least in the Orthodox Church, a Priest has no dogmatic statement which requires mandatory adherence and tailors his guidance to fit the circumstances of the individual (e.g. oikonomia or Economy).

No hard feelings at all.  In fact I loved your wonderful reply to my grumpy note.  You won me over then and there!!

There is a good article by Father Lev Gillet that I will have to dig out for you from my documents which I will publish here if it is not on-line any more.  He has good references to eastern sources for the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.  Duns Scotus was really rather incidental to it all, and late in the day for the teaching.

As to professional theologians, yes, their ruminations and speculations can lead down all sorts of wrong-headed rabbit trails.  They can also make some astonishingly inspired statements.  So the Church is wise to allow them room to consider the language of belief and theology, but not to depend upon them for formal teaching, but rather to look to the holy men and women of the Church, many of whom themselves, are well versed in Scripture and the ancient Fathers.

There is room for pastoral action in the Catholic Church with respect to all moral teaching.  But only God reads the hearts of men and women.  Remember it is you and I who must take our sins to our confessor.  He does not, generally speaking, come out looking for us pointing fingers and shouting "J'acuse!!"

But salvation is the narrow path so it is up to the Church NOT to direct us into the path of ease and good feelings.

M.
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: ialmisry on November 08, 2010, 10:09:10 PM


I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?


The Divine Liturgy
Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: Papist on November 08, 2010, 10:13:34 PM


I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?


The Divine Liturgy
Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."
The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: ialmisry on November 08, 2010, 10:56:04 PM
There is a good article by Father Lev Gillet that I will have to dig out for you from my documents which I will publish here if it is not on-line any more.  He has good references to eastern sources for the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.  Duns Scotus was really rather incidental to it all, and late in the day for the teaching.
Without Duns Scotus pushing it, the "foreign doctrine" as St. Bonaventure called it teaching at Paris, would hot have been taken up by the Univeristy of Paris with a blood oath to uphold and propogate it. Duns Scotus was both central and the catalyst
Quote
St. Bernard was perfectly justified when he demanded a careful inquiry into the reasons for observing the feast. Not adverting to the possibility of sanctification at the time of the infusion of the soul, he writes that there can be question only of sanctification after conception, which would render holy the nativity, not the conception itself (Scheeben, "Dogmatik", III, p. 550). Hence Albert the Great observes: "We say that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation, and the affirmative contrary to this is the heresy condemned by St. Bernard in his epistle to the canons of Lyons" (III Sent., dist. iii, p. I, ad 1, Q. i).

St. Bernard was at once answered in a treatise written by either Richard of St. Victor or Peter Comestor. In this treatise appeal is made to a feast which had been established to commemorate an insupportable tradition. It maintained that the flesh of Mary needed no purification; that it was sanctified before the conception. Some writers of those times entertained the fantastic idea that before Adam fell, a portion of his flesh had been reserved by God and transmitted from generation to generation, and that out of this flesh the body of Mary was formed (Scheeben, op. cit., III, 551), and this formation they commemorated by a feast. The letter of St. Bernard did not prevent the extension of the feast, for in 1154 it was observed all over France, until in 1275, through the efforts of the Paris University, it was abolished in Paris and other dioceses.

After the saint's death the controversy arose anew between Nicholas of St. Albans, an English monk who defended the festival as established in England, and Peter Cellensis, the celebrated Bishop of Chartres. Nicholas remarks that the soul of Mary was pierced twice by the sword, i.e. at the foot of the cross and when St. Bernard wrote his letter against her feast (Scheeben, III, 551). The point continued to be debated throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and illustrious names appeared on each side. St. Peter Damian, Peter the Lombard, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and Albert the Great are quoted as opposing it.

In the thirteenth century the opposition was largely due to a want of clear insight into the subject in dispute. The word "conception" was used in different senses, which had not been separated by careful definition. If St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and other theologians had known the doctrine in the sense of the definition of 1854, they would have been its strongest defenders instead of being its opponents.
::)
Quote
The famous Duns Scotus (d. 1308) at last (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries) laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed. He showed that the sanctification after animation — sanctificatio post animationem — demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis); he removed the great difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin. He also brought forward, by way of illustration, the somewhat dangerous and doubtful argument of Eadmer (S. Anselm) "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit."
Dangerous and doubtful indeed.
Quote
From the time of Scotus not only did the doctrine become the common opinion at the universities, but the feast spread widely to those countries where it had not been previously adopted. With the exception of the Dominicans, all or nearly all, of the religious orders took it up...The controversy continued, but the defenders of the opposing opinion were almost entirely confined to the members of the Dominican Order. In 1439 the dispute was brought before the Council of Basle where the University of Paris, formerly opposed to the doctrine, proved to be its most ardent advocate, asking for a dogmatical definition...Whilst these disputes went on, the great universities and almost all the great orders had become so many bulwarks for the defense of the dogma. In 1497 the University of Paris decreed that henceforward no one should be admitted a member of the university, who did not swear that he would do the utmost to defend and assert the Immaculate Conception of Mary...
thereafter follows the list already posted
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

I'll wait until you post Fr. Lev Gillet to comment further.

Quote
As to professional theologians, yes, their ruminations and speculations can lead down all sorts of wrong-headed rabbit trails.

of which the IC is only one example
Quote
They can also make some astonishingly inspired statements.
Read St. Bonaventure, and St. Bernard of Clairveaux's  letters on the IC.  

Quote
So the Church is wise to allow them room to consider the language of belief and theology, but not to depend upon them for formal teaching, but rather to look to the holy men and women of the Church, many of whom themselves, are well versed in Scripture and the ancient Fathers.

There is room for pastoral action in the Catholic Church with respect to all moral teaching.  But only God reads the hearts of men and women.  Remember it is you and I who must take our sins to our confessor.  He does not, generally speaking, come out looking for us pointing fingers and shouting "J'acuse!!"

But salvation is the narrow path so it is up to the Church NOT to direct us into the path of ease and good feelings.

So where do you place HV in all of that?
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: SolEX01 on November 08, 2010, 10:57:23 PM

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

The Divine Liturgy

So the Papacy obtained an infallible dogma from a suppressed Liturgical Rite?   ???
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: ialmisry on November 08, 2010, 10:59:07 PM


I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?


The Divine Liturgy
Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."
The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom
Is there some Latinized or Novus Ordo service which claims that name that teaches the IC?  It's not in the Orthodox original.
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: Papist on November 08, 2010, 10:59:59 PM


I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?


The Divine Liturgy
Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."
The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom
Is there some Latinized or Novus Ordo service which claims that name that teaches the IC?  It's not in the Orthodox original.
Nope
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 08, 2010, 11:07:48 PM
How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?

I do not know that they did. Certainly many became Latinized as they trained in Latin seminaries, but this affected the Basilians much more than married clergy who stayed close to their roots.

OK, did the Greek Catholic Eparchies in the USA embrace Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals here or were they passed down from the Basilians in Europe who brought them to the USA via immigration?
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: ialmisry on November 08, 2010, 11:13:58 PM


I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?


The Divine Liturgy
Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."
The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom
Is there some Latinized or Novus Ordo service which claims that name that teaches the IC?  It's not in the Orthodox original.
Nope
Right, it's not in the Orthodox original.
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: SolEX01 on November 08, 2010, 11:21:40 PM


I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?


The Divine Liturgy
Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."
The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom
Is there some Latinized or Novus Ordo service which claims that name that teaches the IC?  It's not in the Orthodox original.
Nope
Right, it's not in the Orthodox original.

If the dogma of the IC is not in the Orthodox Original of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, where else could the IC come from?  Aristotle?  Plato?   ???
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 08, 2010, 11:35:46 PM
The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom

It would be wrong to conclude the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom's use of achrantos/all-pure/immacualte implies the IC.  Especially since St. John, rare among the Fathers, believed the Theotokos sinned.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 08, 2010, 11:41:27 PM
How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?

I do not know that they did. Certainly many became Latinized as they trained in Latin seminaries, but this affected the Basilians much more than married clergy who stayed close to their roots.

OK, did the Greek Catholic Eparchies in the USA embrace Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals here or were they passed down from the Basilians in Europe who brought them to the USA via immigration?

I don't think they embraced them any more than the Orthodox in the US did and I realize that is debated question.  Since Vatican II there has been a Patristic revival among Greek Catholics. 
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 09, 2010, 12:04:56 AM
How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?

I do not know that they did. Certainly many became Latinized as they trained in Latin seminaries, but this affected the Basilians much more than married clergy who stayed close to their roots.

OK, did the Greek Catholic Eparchies in the USA embrace Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals here or were they passed down from the Basilians in Europe who brought them to the USA via immigration?

I don't think they embraced them any more than the Orthodox in the US did and I realize that is debated question.

Fair enough; I'm satisfied with the answer because the original intent was to discern how Greek Catholics can adopt dogmas like IC and Humanae Vitae without compromising their former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   ???  

Since Vatican II there has been a Patristic revival among Greek Catholics. 

Rediscovering their former Liturgical Deposit?  ???
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 09, 2010, 12:22:19 AM
Fair enough; I'm satisfied with the answer because the original intent was to discern how Greek Catholics can adopt dogmas like IC and Humanae Vitae without compromising their former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   ???
 
Well for the IC, it was raising the rank of the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos to Vigil and filling in the missing hymns with ones explicitly proclaiming the IC.  Since HV is a moral dogma

Rediscovering their former Liturgical Deposit?  ???

No, the full cycle of services was always present in the Seminaries.  I was thinking on relying on the Eastern Fathers in the teaching of theology rather than the Scholastics.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 09, 2010, 12:30:01 AM
Fair enough; I'm satisfied with the answer because the original intent was to discern how Greek Catholics can adopt dogmas like IC and Humanae Vitae without compromising their former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   ???
 
Well for the IC, it was raising the rank of the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos to Vigil and filling in the missing hymns with ones explicitly proclaiming the IC.  Since HV is a moral dogma

So Moral dogma supersedes the Greek Catholics former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   ???

Rediscovering their former Liturgical Deposit?  ???

No, the full cycle of services was always present in the Seminaries.  I was thinking on relying on the Eastern Fathers in the teaching of theology rather than the Scholastics.

Any Eastern Fathers in particular?
Title: Re: How to Express Sarcasm on the Internet
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 09, 2010, 12:46:29 AM
The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom

It would be wrong to conclude the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom's use of achrantos/all-pure/immacualte implies the IC.  Especially since St. John, rare among the Fathers, believed the Theotokos sinned.

On another note, here is the authentic and traditional voice of the Catholic Church and what it believed in the 13th century and through the preceding centuries...

The 13th century Thomas Aquinas:

"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. . . . If she
would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be
redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal
Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ."

Chapter CCXXXII bis. Thomas Aquinas, Compendio do Teologia, Barcelona, 1985.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 09, 2010, 12:50:32 AM
With regard to the claims being given here about the Holy Fathers, with a claim that they teach the IC ....  I see that the Catholic Encyclopedia takes a more restrained approach...

"From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin
in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those
of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these
and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and
interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally
or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 09, 2010, 12:59:23 AM
With regard to the claims being given here about the Holy Fathers, with a claim that they teach the IC ....  I see that the Catholic Encyclopedia takes a more restrained approach...

"From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin
in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those
of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these
and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and
interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally
or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

From the Proof from Reason section of the above link:

Quote
... the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence;God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her.


By reason, God could have given Adam and Eve the privilege of remaining in Eden after they have sinned (or absolved them of their sin while in Eden); however, God cast them out instead with the original sin which spread throughout humanity until Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 09, 2010, 01:28:31 AM
So Moral dogma supersedes the Greek Catholics former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   ???
Whoops!  Lost part of my post.  I was going to say HV deals with moral theology which usually isn't dealt with liturgically.

Any Eastern Fathers in particular?

SS. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, John Climacus, Maximos the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, Simeon the New Theologian.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: SolEX01 on November 09, 2010, 03:40:11 AM
So Moral dogma supersedes the Greek Catholics former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   ???
Whoops!  Lost part of my post.  I was going to say HV deals with moral theology which usually isn't dealt with liturgically.

Because Moral Theology isn't part of the former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit.

Any Eastern Fathers in particular?

SS. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, John Climacus, Maximos the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, Simeon the New Theologian.

Hopefully not reinterpreting them to sync with the current "Moral Theology" of the Vatican.   ???
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 09, 2010, 08:44:45 AM
So Moral dogma supersedes the Greek Catholics former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   ???
Whoops!  Lost part of my post.  I was going to say HV deals with moral theology which usually isn't dealt with liturgically.

Because Moral Theology isn't part of the former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit.

Any Eastern Fathers in particular?

SS. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, John Climacus, Maximos the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, Simeon the New Theologian.

Hopefully not reinterpreting them to sync with the current "Moral Theology" of the Vatican.   ???

Well they sure as the dickens don't "sync" with artificial birth control.  In fact many of them don't "sync" with unitive sex either...

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 09, 2010, 09:09:03 AM
Just to make sure we have them before us, these are the documents that signalled the change (not Lambeth 1930) from the patristics that HV implicitely (but not explicitely) is based on, as far as HV is based on patristics at all.

Quote
The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?" The Vatican reply was, "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation" By the expression "impedes generation", it is obvious the Vatican meant the use of onanism (or coitus interruptus, now popularly called 'withdrawal'), condoms, etc. For otherwise the reply would be self-contradictory and make no sense.

"Qu:. An licitus sit usus matrimonii illis tantum diebus, quibus difficilior est conceptio?
[Whether it is licit to make use of marriage only on those days when it is more difficult for conception to occur?"]

"Resp.: Coniuges praedicto modo utentes inquietandos non esse, posseque confessarium sententiam de qua agitur, illis coniugibus, caute tamen, insinuare, quos alia ratione a detestabili onanismi crimine abducere frustra tentaverit" (DS 3148).
[Spouses using the aforesaid method are not to be disturbed; and a confessor may, with due caution, suggest this proposal to spouses, if his other attempts to lead them away from the detestable crime of onanism have proved fruitless.]
This decision was published in Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 13 (1881), pp. 459-460, and then in Analecta Iuris Pontificii, vol. 22 (1883), p. 249.

 "De uso exclusivo temporum agenneseos:
[Regarding the Exclusive Use of the Infertile Period]
"Qu.:An licita in se sit praxis coniugum, qui, cum ob iustas et graves causas prolem honesto modo evitare malint, ex mutuo consensu et motivo honesto a matrimonio utendo abstinent praeterquam diebus, quibus secundum quorundam recentiorum theoremata ob rationes naturales conceptio haberi non potest?
[Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage-by mutual consent and with upright motives-except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons]

"Resp.: Provisum est per Resp. S. Paenitentiariae, 16. Iun. 1880."
[Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1165258/posts#FN_6


On the use of natural law, it is used in Orthodoxy, as much as canon law is used in US law:only to illuminate the issues for resolution according to other principles (in the case of the US law, the constitution and common law;in the case of Orthodoxy, revelation).  It does not, nor should it for Orthodox, form the basis of the moral order.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 09, 2010, 09:11:57 AM
So Moral dogma supersedes the Greek Catholics former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   ???
Whoops!  Lost part of my post.  I was going to say HV deals with moral theology which usually isn't dealt with liturgically.

Because Moral Theology isn't part of the former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit.

Any Eastern Fathers in particular?

SS. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, John Climacus, Maximos the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, Simeon the New Theologian.

Hopefully not reinterpreting them to sync with the current "Moral Theology" of the Vatican.   ???

Well they sure as the dickens don't "sync" with artificial birth control.  In fact many of them don't "sync" with unitive sex either...
hence the lack of a patristic basis for the Vatican's innovation of a distinction between ABC and NFP so called. Also the lack of a consensus on the mater at hand.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 09, 2010, 09:37:19 AM
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. 

The expectation with Natural Family Planning or the rhythm method is that WHEN a couple engages sexually that they are, at the time of the act, open to life....AND ....also that they use these methods of limiting the frequency of children into the family in such a way that they also remain open to life, and do not stop the process of procreation based upon material convenience and comfort.

There are pastoral exceptions to this based on all kinds of circumstances, but the fundamental difference between artificial methods and natural methods is the ascetic practice of continence and chastity in the marriage, requiring an on-going awareness of the sanctity of life and the gift of sexual pleasure and its unitive role in the love between a husband and wife, and the needs of the family in terms of material capabilities and concerns for the overall health, primarily of the woman, but also of the husband when the circumstances of his own health and well being demand.

There are many many Catholic families who are spiritually aware and mature and do not resist the call to intimacy OR the call to continence, depending on the good of the other and the family.


Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 09, 2010, 09:49:36 AM
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. 


I have to say that I have always found this a rather dishonest way of presenting NFP.  People offer it with the implication that people are using NFP to have sex during the time of the month when they may conceive a child.   They disguise the common usage of NFP which is to have sex in the period when the woman is infertile and so avoid conceiving a child.

As always, I point out that only an estimated 2% to 3% of Catholic marrieds use NFP so in reality any discussion of it has quite an air of unreality.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 09, 2010, 10:12:15 AM
Father Ambrose has completely distorted the meaning of my post below.  Please try to read it with an open mind before tossing it out. 

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.

As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

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. 

The expectation with Natural Family Planning or the rhythm method is that WHEN a couple engages sexually that they are, at the time of the act, open to life....AND ....also that they use these methods of limiting the frequency of children into the family in such a way that they also remain open to life, and do not stop the process of procreation based upon material convenience and comfort.

There are pastoral exceptions to this based on all kinds of circumstances, but the fundamental difference between artificial methods and natural methods is the ascetic practice of continence and chastity in the marriage, requiring an on-going awareness of the sanctity of life and the gift of sexual pleasure and its unitive role in the love between a husband and wife, and the needs of the family in terms of material capabilities and concerns for the overall health, primarily of the woman, but also of the husband when the circumstances of his own health and well being demand.

There are many many Catholic families who are spiritually aware and mature and do not resist the call to intimacy OR the call to continence, depending on the good of the other and the family.



Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 09, 2010, 11:11:38 AM
As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

Nice try to fudge the issue but no cigar.  :laugh: Have you really forgotten the source?

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reported a few years back that they  estimate that only between 2% and 3% of childbearing Catholic couples use NFP.  The remaining 97% use methods of contraception forbidden by their  Church and seen as gravely sinful. 

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

from
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/prolife/article_05.asp

"You can probably guess-timate that 2 or 3 percent of Catholic women use it [Natural Family Planning]," says Theresa Notare, assistant director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Asteriktos on November 09, 2010, 11:16:26 AM
"The method of contraception practiced by these Manichees whom Augustine knew is the use of the sterile period as determined by Greek medicine... In the history of the thought of theologians on contraception, it is, no doubt, piquant that the first pronouncement on contraception by the most influential theologian teaching on such matters should be such a vigorous attack on the one method of avoiding procreation accepted by twentieth-century Catholic theologians as morally lawful." - John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment By the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, (Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 120
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 09, 2010, 11:49:07 AM
As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.

Not exactly something I'd want to bet the farm on.

M.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 09, 2010, 12:30:44 PM
Father Ambrose has completely distorted the meaning of my post below.  Please try to read it with an open mind before tossing it out.
 

We have already covered this, and on this very thread.

Quote
Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.
4) to not have children, ever. Withdrawal is as natural as rhythm, both being equally condemned by the Fathers the Vatican leans on for justifying HV after the fact.

Quote
The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.

No. A common mistake of monastics, and given the monopoly of monastics over the Vatican, a wide mistake there as well.  Were it otherwise, marital union would be just incidental, like eating meat. When St. Paul talks about abstaining for prayer, it has nothing to do with the rhythm method (which I doubt was known at the time).  The quote above from St. Augustine reflects that. To think otherwise is in the same category of nonsense as the thought that married clergy lived "like brother and sister in perfect contience."

One can argue that the rhythm method is an aspect of chastity, but you haven't done so.

Quote
As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

Can you provide better data?

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

Quote
The expectation with Natural Family Planning or the rhythm method is that WHEN a couple engages sexually that they are, at the time of the act, open to life....AND ....also that they use these methods of limiting the frequency of children into the family in such a way that they also remain open to life, and do not stop the process of procreation based upon material convenience and comfort.
odd expectation, given that the rhythm method has a high success rate in avoiding life, unlike withdrawal or condoms.

Quote
There are pastoral exceptions to this based on all kinds of circumstances,


HV and the Fathers it claims after the fact do not admit of "exceptions," pastoral or otherwise.  Pastoralism is how the shift occured in the Vatican in 1853 and was reaffirmed by the Vatican in 1880.

Quote
but the fundamental difference between artificial methods and natural methods is the ascetic practice of continence and chastity in the marriage, requiring an on-going awareness of the sanctity of life and the gift of sexual pleasure and its unitive role in the love between a husband and wife, and the needs of the family in terms of material capabilities and concerns for the overall health, primarily of the woman, but also of the husband when the circumstances of his own health and well being demand.

That difference is not founded neither on the patristics you claim nor the natural law you claim to follow.  The quote of St. Clement of Alexandria is enough to indicate that.

Quote
There are many many Catholic families who are spiritually aware and mature and do not resist the call to intimacy OR the call to continence, depending on the good of the other and the family.
Neither call is what the claimed basis of HV calls for.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 09, 2010, 12:31:44 PM
As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.


I think that we all know by now that while you will condemn and deny this and that, you are usually quite unable or unwilling to explain what you actually mean when people ask you for your reasons.  So I imagine it is quite useless to ask you why you reject something from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and what you believe to be more reliable.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 09, 2010, 12:37:37 PM
As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.


I think that we all know by now that while you will condemn and deny this and that, you are usually quite unable or unwilling to explain what you actually mean when people ask you for your reasons.  So I imagine it is quite useless to ask you why you reject something from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and what you believe to be more reliable.

"Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed": one would think that the followers of the Vatican don't use it because by the Vatican's own terms, engaging in mortal sin, they can't be "Catholics."
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 09, 2010, 12:38:51 PM
As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.

Not exactly something I'd want to bet the farm on.

M.

Then provide something else to bet the farm on, because the time to call has come.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 09, 2010, 12:40:05 PM
As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.


I think that we all know by now that while you will condemn and deny this and that, you are usually quite unable or unwilling to explain what you actually mean when people ask you for your reasons.  So I imagine it is quite useless to ask you why you reject something from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and what you believe to be more reliable.

You have been given, by other Catholics on my discussion list, a whole laundry list of things that were wrong with that survey.  And I've see you be given the same list on other Catholic venues.

So no.  I don't intend to repeat it all here...to spend hours searching for the notes that are two and three years old.  You depend on the "sound-bite" nature of this kind of venue to press on even in the face of correction for the present moment is all that counts when it comes to feeding the minds of your immediate audience.

But you are wrong about the survey being an adequate assessment of what Catholics do or do not do, and the only real text you've provided here is your own private spin doctoring as though it is part of the survey itself.

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 09, 2010, 12:50:50 PM
As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.


I think that we all know by now that while you will condemn and deny this and that, you are usually quite unable or unwilling to explain what you actually mean when people ask you for your reasons.  So I imagine it is quite useless to ask you why you reject something from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and what you believe to be more reliable.

You have been given, by other Catholics on my discussion list, a whole laundry list of things that were wrong with that survey.  And I've see you be given the same list on other Catholic venues.

........
But you are wrong about the survey being an adequate assessment of what Catholics do or do not do, and the only real text you've provided here is your own private spin doctoring as though it is part of the survey itself.




Wow, that is all a bit mendacious, Mary, since we are not looking at a survey.   So who the heck are all the Catholics who have taken me to task about this "survey"?

What I have provided, with no spin doctoring, is information from Theresa Notare.  

Her credentials are impeccable - Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and Secretariat for Pro-life Activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Those credentials mean more to me than your unsupported claims and references to a bunch of anonymous and ignorant people who think we are talking about a "survey."

Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 09, 2010, 12:57:30 PM
As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.


I think that we all know by now that while you will condemn and deny this and that, you are usually quite unable or unwilling to explain what you actually mean when people ask you for your reasons.  So I imagine it is quite useless to ask you why you reject something from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and what you believe to be more reliable.

You have been given, by other Catholics on my discussion list, a whole laundry list of things that were wrong with that survey.  And I've see you be given the same list on other Catholic venues.

........
But you are wrong about the survey being an adequate assessment of what Catholics do or do not do, and the only real text you've provided here is your own private spin doctoring as though it is part of the survey itself.




Wow, that is all a bit mendacious, Mary, since we are not looking at a survey.   So who the heck are all the Catholics who have taken me to task about this "survey"?

What I have provided, with no spin doctoring, is information from Theresa Notare.  

Her credentials are impeccable - Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and Secretariat for Pro-life Activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Those credentials mean more to me than your unsupported claims and references to a bunch of anonymous and ignorant people who think we are talking about a "survey."



Both Stan Ziobro and Al Thrasher took you to task that I can remember.   Stan and I have actually worked at the level of the diocese in terms of promoting morality among young Catholics, and Al Thrasher is a researcher at the Library of Congress and knows a bit about the construction of research instruments.

We all three told you that it was a flawed survey.

You live in a back alley in New Zealand and frankly would not know whether Theresa Notare is impeccable or not, and none of the added text that you offer is given in the survey.  If it is then you can quote it rather than paraphrasing it to suit.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 09, 2010, 01:27:45 PM
Would you deal with the earlier troubling questions?   Why did you falsely claim we were dealing with a *survey* and why did you claim that others have shown the falsity of this *survey* and what is your superior source which discredits the *survey*?  I won't be satisfied by your usual appeal to an anonynous group of friends.

It matters little that I live in New Zealand. You live in Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 09, 2010, 01:32:21 PM
Would you deal with the earlier troubling questions?   Why did you falsely claim we were dealing with a *survey* and why did you claim that others have shown the falsity of this *survey* and what is your superior source which discredits the *survey*?  I won't be satisfied by your usual appeal to an anonynous group of friends.

It matters little that I live in New Zealand. You live in Pennsylvania.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If you don't need a nap on this on, I do.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 09, 2010, 01:32:54 PM

You live in a back alley in New Zealand and frankly would not know whether Theresa Notare is impeccable or not,

 

If you were reading CAF at the time you must have forgotten that enquiries were made about her and her information at the time.  Insult me all you like but it shows you're desperate to disparage the information and you are now playing the man and not the ball.

I notice you still have not provided what you consider accurate information.  That speaks volumes.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: elijahmaria on November 09, 2010, 01:42:10 PM

You live in a back alley in New Zealand and frankly would not know whether Theresa Notare is impeccable or not,

 

If you were reading CAF at the time you must have forgotten that enquiries were made about her and her information at the time.  Insult me all you like but it shows you're desperate to disparage the information and you are now playing the man and not the ball.

I notice you still have not provided what you consider accurate information.  That speaks volumes.

I have never followed CAF, Father.  I have found better ways to waste my time.

This clearly is a personal bone of your own that you'll have to gnaw on by yourself for a while.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 09, 2010, 02:13:58 PM
Speaking of personal.

I know a family where the couple, pre-Vatican II (in time frame, not sedvacantist) who evidently never used contraception, artificial or natural, having 7 kids. They were insistent on "Catholic education," parish membership etc. and above all the "no divorce" prohibition, so they were practising HV before HV.

The first was conceived out of wedlock, and it would have remained that way were it not that his family, in particular his sisters, nagged him into marrying the mothers for half a year after the child was born.  This was in the early 50's, not the "enlightened" age we live in now, so it was quite a statement on his part that he refused until his family broke him of it.

They proceeded to have the six others, and it is common knowledge that the mother used the children as a means to tie the father down and control him.  Talk about "unitive." I might mention that all but one of the children are married, all the marriages resulting from conceptions occuring in their house. The one who isn't married has no kids, undoubtedly practices contraception, in a longstanding cohabitation.

He retired a few years ago. A mutual friend who worked with him daily for decades, when we mentioned his family, was taken aback "He has kids? I wasn't even aware he was married."

Now being retired, and the kids all gone, he lives in the "summer" home on basically a permanent basis. For all intents and purposes they are divorced. Question is, were they ever married?

I mention this because NFP is often preached with an almost magical quality: it has a high success rate as contraception and a 0% divorce rate.  This example of a couple (only the more extreme of other examples I could cite) raises the question is "NFP" a cause, effect or auxiliary of such success rates.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on November 09, 2010, 05:17:24 PM
Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on November 09, 2010, 05:28:24 PM
Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I honestly can't imagine any of those things happening.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 09, 2010, 05:54:31 PM
Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 09, 2010, 08:42:40 PM

You live in a back alley in New Zealand and frankly would not know whether Theresa Notare is impeccable or not,

 

If you were reading CAF at the time you must have forgotten that enquiries were made about her and her information at the time.  Insult me all you like but it shows you're desperate to disparage the information and you are now playing the man and not the ball.

I notice you still have not provided what you consider accurate information.  That speaks volumes.

I have never followed CAF, Father.  I have found better ways to waste my time.

This clearly is a personal bone of your own that you'll have to gnaw on by yourself for a while.

The bone seems to be yours.  You constantly dispute this information supplied by a highly placed person with the USCCB who is employed by the bishops in NFP matters - and yet you are totally unable to offer any other reliable information (even though you claim to be in possession of it.)    The bone's in your court. 
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on November 09, 2010, 08:57:21 PM
Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I honestly can't imagine any of those things happening.
So the reunion is blocked on this issue?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on November 09, 2010, 08:58:56 PM
Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 09, 2010, 09:44:41 PM
Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?

Newsflash, ZENIT (Nov 9,2099):   After the 2100 union of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict-John-Paul III, an estimated 300 million Catholics are expected to switch their canonical allegiance to the Eastern Church to take advantage of the opportunity to have a second sacramental marriage and be able to receive the Eucharist.
 :laugh:
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 09, 2010, 10:29:41 PM
Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
    From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?
It's not really a question of each side.  There are a fair number of Orthodox who agree with the Vatican on this, more or less, some being nearly identical.  That Orthodoxy, like the Fathers, doesn't have a overarching dogmatic stance on the matter-besides the distinction between abortifacients and non-abortifacients-and hence has no problem, as of yet, with those who are near identical in the Church and those who accept any non-abortifacient method.  That would not change if the Vatican's flock was received with the Vatican, because it is only a question of how large the percentage of that flock already practices what many in the Orthodox Church preach.  A single issue, on that point, is the question of how many of the Vatican's hard core follow it on HV.  I am not refering here to those who love this as a dogmatic difference between the Vatican and the Orthodox. I don't think that they are great in numbers, although they do set the discource in magisterial followers of the Vatican and conservative media (EWTN, Relevant Radio, etc.).  I am curious about the assenting followers, which seem to be the subject of a recent study:
Quote
Magister said that the author attributes these numbers to silence on the part of the Catholic clergy at the time, who were employing the “theory of good faith” taught by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori.

“According to this theory,” said Magister, “in the presence of a penitent who is suspected of committing contraceptive actions but appears unaware of the gravity of the sin and in practice incapable of correcting his behavior, it is best to respect his silence and take his good faith into account, absolving him without posing any further questions.”

However, Magister wrote that “a change took place in 1931” with the publication by Pius XI's encyclical "Casti Connubii."

“From then on, at the behest of the hierarchy, conjugal morality became a bigger part of preaching. And therefore the room for inculpable ignorance was reduced,” Magister noted. “A few priests wrote about this: once it has been said in public what is good and what is evil between spouses, 'good faith can no longer be admitted.'”

“But decades of silence, interpreted by most of the faithful as consent to their contraceptive practice, had left its mark,” the Vatican analyst stressed. “In their answers to the question about birth control – a dozen years after 'Casti Connubii' – some priests recognized that their preaching on this matter made no impression.”

“In the meantime, in Catholic Veneto the birth rate had fallen to levels near zero growth,” he added. “But the distance between Church teaching and the use of contraceptives continues to be perceived by most of the population as neither a sin nor a rebellion.”

“Even afterward – and this brings us up to today – the condemnation of contraceptives would be the subject of papal documents, but already at the level of the bishops it would hardly appear in preaching.”

“The clergy, for their part, would be almost completely silent on it. And would continue to be very understanding and indulgent in the confessional,” Magister concluded.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-analyst-catholic-use-of-contraception-linked-to-silence-of-clergy/
The difference between the magisterial and the assenting I would see as the former accepting HV as infallible-something many of them explicitely stating that belief-and the assenting viewing it more as ordinary magisterium of the pope, like "Providentissimus Deus" if not like "Unam Sanctam" and hence not infallible, the magisterial following any statement of the pope, whether "infallible" or not, and the assenting limiting obedience to only to teaching definitively identified as "Infallible."
Another study "The Influence of Religiosity on Contraceptive Use among Roman Catholics," by J Ohlendorf
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=richard_fehring
finds that the most religious have the highest incidence of the rhythm method, followed by sterilization (!).

Now, Truth isn't up for a vote, that's not what is at question.  The question was whether the difference between the Vatican's teaching and that of the Orthodox Church presents an obstacle for union:at the level below the hiearchy, i.e. the ones for whom this is not a theoretical issue, they already are following the Orthodox position, including those EO who are near if not identifcal with the Vatican on this issue:I never hear them elevating this as an issue like the calendar.  That leaves the Vatican and those who hold to HV, which is not the entirety of the magisterium. In this, HV doesn't differ from any other exercise of papal authority. At present, HV technically can be argued to be ordinary magisterium, and hence infallible, and hence not technically something the Orthodox would have to sign off on to satify the Vatican.  We don't see it as that simple, but we wouldn't be the ones to raise the issue out of any other issue we had with papal claims. That would be up to the Vatican and those bishops who adhere to HV, because they would be the only ones insisting on it at any rate. The quadry of whether admitting it as ordinary magisterium as the Vatican defines that and leaving it at that, or raising it to the level of domga and "infallibility," would be theirs to deal with.

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?
I don't think it would be each side: many of the Vatican's flock already practice what the Orthodox preach. They would continue to do so, especially given a clearance to do so. Some of those EO who see HV as an Orthodox document might try to raise it onto the dogmatic level and join forces with the Vatican to pull the rest of the Orthodox in that direction, but I don't even see that happening.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 09, 2010, 10:37:02 PM
Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?

Newsflash, ZENIT (Nov 9,2099):   After the 2100 union of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict-John-Paul III, an estimated 300 million Catholics are expected to switch their canonical allegiance to the Eastern Church to take advantage of the opportunity to have a second sacramental marriage and be able to receive the Eucharist.
 :laugh:

Tongue in cheek, Father. But it makes me think, I don't have a real sense of what the "sui juris" flocks hold on HV.  I know many who outright do not accept the IC, Vatican I etc.: is HV another difference they see between the Vatican and themselves?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: stanley123 on November 09, 2010, 11:02:18 PM
Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
    From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?
It's not really a question of each side.  There are a fair number of Orthodox who agree with the Vatican on this, more or less, some being nearly identical.  That Orthodoxy, like the Fathers, doesn't have a overarching dogmatic stance on the matter-besides the distinction between abortifacients and non-abortifacients-and hence has no problem, as of yet, with those who are near identical in the Church and those who accept any non-abortifacient method.  That would not change if the Vatican's flock was received with the Vatican, because it is only a question of how large the percentage of that flock already practices what many in the Orthodox Church preach.  A single issue, on that point, is the question of how many of the Vatican's hard core follow it on HV.  I am not refering here to those who love this as a dogmatic difference between the Vatican and the Orthodox. I don't think that they are great in numbers, although they do set the discource in magisterial followers of the Vatican and conservative media (EWTN, Relevant Radio, etc.).  I am curious about the assenting followers, which seem to be the subject of a recent study:
Quote
Magister said that the author attributes these numbers to silence on the part of the Catholic clergy at the time, who were employing the “theory of good faith” taught by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori.

“According to this theory,” said Magister, “in the presence of a penitent who is suspected of committing contraceptive actions but appears unaware of the gravity of the sin and in practice incapable of correcting his behavior, it is best to respect his silence and take his good faith into account, absolving him without posing any further questions.”

However, Magister wrote that “a change took place in 1931” with the publication by Pius XI's encyclical "Casti Connubii."

“From then on, at the behest of the hierarchy, conjugal morality became a bigger part of preaching. And therefore the room for inculpable ignorance was reduced,” Magister noted. “A few priests wrote about this: once it has been said in public what is good and what is evil between spouses, 'good faith can no longer be admitted.'”

“But decades of silence, interpreted by most of the faithful as consent to their contraceptive practice, had left its mark,” the Vatican analyst stressed. “In their answers to the question about birth control – a dozen years after 'Casti Connubii' – some priests recognized that their preaching on this matter made no impression.”

“In the meantime, in Catholic Veneto the birth rate had fallen to levels near zero growth,” he added. “But the distance between Church teaching and the use of contraceptives continues to be perceived by most of the population as neither a sin nor a rebellion.”

“Even afterward – and this brings us up to today – the condemnation of contraceptives would be the subject of papal documents, but already at the level of the bishops it would hardly appear in preaching.”

“The clergy, for their part, would be almost completely silent on it. And would continue to be very understanding and indulgent in the confessional,” Magister concluded.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-analyst-catholic-use-of-contraception-linked-to-silence-of-clergy/
The difference between the magisterial and the assenting I would see as the former accepting HV as infallible-something many of them explicitely stating that belief-and the assenting viewing it more as ordinary magisterium of the pope, like "Providentissimus Deus" if not like "Unam Sanctam" and hence not infallible, the magisterial following any statement of the pope, whether "infallible" or not, and the assenting limiting obedience to only to teaching definitively identified as "Infallible."
Another study "The Influence of Religiosity on Contraceptive Use among Roman Catholics," by J Ohlendorf
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=richard_fehring
finds that the most religious have the highest incidence of the rhythm method, followed by sterilization (!).

Now, Truth isn't up for a vote, that's not what is at question.  The question was whether the difference between the Vatican's teaching and that of the Orthodox Church presents an obstacle for union:at the level below the hiearchy, i.e. the ones for whom this is not a theoretical issue, they already are following the Orthodox position, including those EO who are near if not identifcal with the Vatican on this issue:I never hear them elevating this as an issue like the calendar.  That leaves the Vatican and those who hold to HV, which is not the entirety of the magisterium. In this, HV doesn't differ from any other exercise of papal authority. At present, HV technically can be argued to be ordinary magisterium, and hence infallible, and hence not technically something the Orthodox would have to sign off on to satify the Vatican.  We don't see it as that simple, but we wouldn't be the ones to raise the issue out of any other issue we had with papal claims. That would be up to the Vatican and those bishops who adhere to HV, because they would be the only ones insisting on it at any rate. The quadry of whether admitting it as ordinary magisterium as the Vatican defines that and leaving it at that, or raising it to the level of domga and "infallibility," would be theirs to deal with.

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?
I don't think it would be each side: many of the Vatican's flock already practice what the Orthodox preach. They would continue to do so, especially given a clearance to do so. Some of those EO who see HV as an Orthodox document might try to raise it onto the dogmatic level and join forces with the Vatican to pull the rest of the Orthodox in that direction, but I don't even see that happening.
Interesting comments.
Yes, it is true that most R. Catholics do not follow HV. In fact, according to a recent poll taken of graduating seniors at a local R Catholic college, 90% said that they thought it was all right for a married couple to use ABC. However, the official RCC position is that it is gravely wrong. So the question, mostly for the Catholics here, but also for everyone else, would be what would happen to this teaching if full intercommunion with the EOC were effected? My guess is that officially  the RCC would not see this as an obstacle to intercommunion, but that there would be some objections raised by ultra-conservatives in the RC Church.   
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 10, 2010, 01:21:36 PM
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, his earnest desires must be in full accordance with those expressed by the Apostle when writing to the Corinthians: I would that all men were even as myself,1 that is, that all should embrace the virtue of continence. No greater happiness can befall the faithful in this life than to have their souls distracted by no worldly cares, the unruly desires of the flesh tranquilized and restrained, and the mind fixed on the practice of piety and the contemplation of heavenly things.
But as, according to the same Apostle, every one has his proper gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that;2 and as marriage is gifted with great and divine blessings, so much so as truly and properly to hold a place among the other Sacraments of the Catholic Church, and as its celebration was honored by the presence of our Lord Himself,3 it is clear that this subject should be explained, particularly since we find that St. Paul and the Prince of the Apostles have in many places minutely described to us not only the dignity but also the duties of the married state. Filled with the Spirit of God (these Apostles) well understood the numerous and important advantages which must flow to Christian society from a knowledge, and an inviolable observance by the faithful of the sanctity of marriage; while they saw that from ignorance or disregard of (its holiness), many and serious calamities and losses must be brought upon the Church.

Nature and Meaning of Marriage
The nature and meaning of marriage are, therefore, to be first explained. Vice not infrequently assumes the semblance of virtue, and hence care must be taken that the faithful be not deceived by a false appearance of marriage, and thus stain their souls with turpitude and wicked lusts. To explain this subject, let us begin with the meaning of the word itself.

NAMES OF THIS SACRAMENT
The word matrimony is derived from the fact that the principal object which a female should propose to herself in marriage is to become a mother; or from the fact that to a mother it belongs to conceive, bring forth and train her offspring.*
It is also called wedlock (conjugium)* from joining together, because a lawful wife is united to her husband, as it were, by a common yoke.
It is called nuptials,* because, as St. Ambrose observes, the bride veiled her face through modesty - a custom which would also seem to imply that she was to be subject and obedient to her husband.4

DEFINITION OF MATRIMONY
Matrimony, according to the general opinion of theologians, is defined: The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.
In order that the different parts of this definition may be better understood, it should be taught that, although a perfect marriage has all the following conditions, - namely, internal consent, external compact expressed by words, the obligation and tie which arise from the contract, and the marriage debt by which it is consummated; yet the obligation and tie expressed by the word union alone have the force and nature of marriage.
The special character of this union is marked by the word conjugal. This word is added because other contracts, by which men and women bind themselves to help each other in consideration of money received or other reason, differ essentially from matrimony.
Next follow the words between qualified persons; for person excluded by law cannot contract marriage, and if they do their marriage is invalid. Persons, for instance, within the fourth degree of kindred, a boy before his fourteenth year, and a female before her twelfth, the ages established by law,* cannot contract marriage.
The words, which obliges them to live together throughout life, express the indissolubility of the tie which binds husband and wife.*

ESSENCE AND CAUSE OF MARRIAGE
Hence it is evident that marriage consists in the tie spoken of above. Some eminent theologians, it is true, say that it consists in the consent, as when they define it: The consent of the man and woman. But we are to understand them to mean that the consent is the efficient cause of marriage, which is the doctrine of the Fathers of the Council of Florence;5 because, without the consent and contract, the obligation and tie cannot possibly exist.

The Kind of Consent Required in Matrimony
It is most necessary that the consent be expressed in words denoting present time.

MUTUAL
Marriage is not a mere donation, but a mutual agreement; and therefore the consent of one of the parties is insufficient for marriage, while the mutual consent of both is essential.

EXTERNAL
To declare this consent words are obviously necessary. If the internal consent alone, without any external indication, were sufficient for marriage, it would then seem to follow as a necessary consequence, that were two persons, living in the most separate and distant countries, to consent to marry, they would contract a true and indissoluble marriage, even before they had mutually signified to each other their consent by letter or messenger - a consequence as repugnant to reason as it is opposed to the decrees and established usage of holy Church.

PRESENT
Rightly was it said that the consent must be expressed in words which have reference to present time; for words which signify a future time, promise, but do not actually unite in marriage. Besides, it is evident that what is to be done has no present existence, and what has no present existence can have little or no firmness or stability. Hence a man who has only promised to marry a certain woman acquires by the promise no marriage rights, since his promise has not yet been fulfilled. Such promises are, it is true, obligatory, and their violation involves the offending party in a breach of faith. But he who has once entered into the matrimonial alliance, regret it as he afterwards may, cannot possibly change, or invalidate, or undo what has been done.
As, then, the marriage contract is not a mere promise, but a transfer of right, by which the man actually yields the dominion of his body to the woman, the woman the dominion of her body to the man, it must therefore be made in words which designate the present time, the force of which words abides with undiminished efficacy from the moment of their utterance, and binds the husband and wife by a tie that cannot be broken.
Instead of words, however, it may be sufficient for marriage to substitute a nod or other unequivocal sign of internal consent. Even silence, when the result of female modesty, may be sufficient, provided the parents answer for their daughter.

The Essence of Marriage Constituted by the Consent
Hence pastors should teach the faithful that the nature and force of marriage consists in the tie and obligation; and that, without consummation, the consent of the parties, expressed in the manner already explained, is sufficient to constitute a true marriage. It is certain that our first parents before their fall, when, according to the holy Fathers, no consummation took place, were really united in marriage.6 Hence the Fathers say that marriage consists not in its use, but in the consent. This doctrine is repeated by St. Ambrose in his book On Virgins.7 *

Twofold Consideration of Marriage
When these matters have been explained, it should be taught that matrimony is to be considered from two points of view either as a natural union, since it was not invented by man but instituted by nature; or as a Sacrament, the efficacy of which transcends the order of nature.

Marriage as a Natural Contract
As grace perfects nature, and as that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual,8 the order of our matter requires that we first treat of Matrimony as a natural contract, imposing natural duties, and next consider what pertains to it as a Sacrament.


INSTITUTED BY GOD
The faithful, therefore, are to be taught in the first place that marriage was instituted by God. We read in Genesis that God created them male and female, and blessed them, saying: "Increase and multiply"; and also: "It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself." And a little further on: But for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam; and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built a rib which he took from Adam into a woman, and brought her to Adam; and Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man: wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be two in one flesh."9 These words, according to the authority of our Lord Himself, as we read in St. Matthew, prove the divine institution of Matrimony.10 *

MARRIAGE IS INDISSOLUBLE BY DIVINE LAW
Not only did God institute marriage; He also, as the Council of Trent declares, rendered it perpetual and indissoluble.11 What God has joined together, says our Lord, let not man separate.12
Although it belongs to marriage as a natural contract to be indissoluble, yet its indissolubility arises principally from its nature as a Sacrament, as it is the sacramental character that, in all its natural relations, elevates marriage to the highest perfection. In any event, dissolubility is at once opposed to the proper education of children, and to the other advantages of marriage.

MARRIAGE NOT OBLIGATORY ON ALL
The words increase and multiply,13 which were uttered by the Lord, do not impose on every individual an obligation to marry, but only declare the purpose of the institution of marriage. Now that the human race is widely diffused, not only is there no law rendering marriage obligatory, but, on the contrary, virginity is highly exalted and strongly recommended in Scripture as superior to marriage, and as a state of greater perfection and holiness. For our Lord and Saviour taught as follows: He that can take it, let him take it;14 and the Apostle says: Concerning virgins I have no commandment from the Lord; but I give counsel as having obtained mercy from the Lord to be faithful.15

THE MOTIVES AND ENDS OF MARRIAGE
We have now to explain why man and woman should be joined in marriage. First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age.
A second reason for marriage is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God. That such was the principal object of the holy Patriarchs when they married is clear from Scripture. Hence the Angel, when informing Tobias of the means of repelling the violent assaults of the evil demon, says: I will show thee who they are over whom the devil can prevail; for they who in such manner receive matrimony as to shut out God from themselves and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule which have not understanding, over them the devil has power. He then adds: Thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children.16 It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime - nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.
Deinde subiecit: „Accipics virginem cum timore Domini, amore filiorum magis, quam libidinc ductus, ut in semine Abrahae benedictioncm in filiis consequaris." Atque una eliam haec causa fuit, cur Deus ab initio matrimonium constituerit. Quare fit, ut illorum sit scelus gravissimum, qui matrimonio iuncti medicamcntis vel conccptum impediunt, vel partum abigunt; haec enim homicidarum impia conspiratio existimanda est.
A third reason has been added, as a consequence of the fall of our first parents. On account of the loss of original innocence the passions began to rise in rebellion against right reason; and man, conscious of his own frailty and unwilling to fight the battles of the flesh, is supplied by marriage with an antidote by which to avoid sins of lust. For fear of fornication, says the Apostle, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband;17 and a little after, having recommended to married persons a temporary abstinence from the marriage debt, to give themselves to prayer, he adds: Return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
These are ends, some one of which, those who desire to contract marriage piously and religiously, as becomes the children of the Saints, should propose to themselves. If to these we add other causes which induce to contract marriage, and, in choosing a wife, to prefer one person to another, such as the desire of leaving an heir, wealth, beauty, illustrious descent, congeniality of disposition - such motives, because not inconsistent with the holiness of marriage, are not to be condemned. We do not find that the Sacred Scriptures condemn the Patriarch Jacob for having chosen Rachel for her beauty, in preference to Lia.18 *
So much should be explained regarding Matrimony as a natural contract.

Marriage Considered as a Sacrament
It will now be necessary to explain that Matrimony is far superior in its sacramental aspect and aims at any incomparably higher end. For as marriage, as a natural union, was instituted from the beginning to propagate the human race; so was the sacramental dignity subsequently conferred upon it in order that a people might be begotten and brought up for the service and worship of the true God and of Christ our Saviour.
Thus when Christ our Lord wished to give a sign of the intimate union that exists between Him and His Church and of His immense love for us, He chose especially the sacred union of man and wife. That this sign was a most appropriate one will readily appear from the fact that of all human relations there is none that binds so closely as the marriage-tie, and from the fact that husband and wife are bound to one another by the bonds of the greatest affection and love. Hence it is that Holy Writ so frequently represents to us the divine union of Christ and the Church under the figure of marriage.

MARRIAGE IS A SACRAMENT
That Matrimony is a Sacrament the Church, following the authority of the Apostles, has always held to be certain and incontestable. In his Epistle to the Ephesians he writes: Men should love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall adhere to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.19 Now his expression, this is a great sacrament, undoubtedly refers to Matrimony, and must be taken to mean that the union of man and wife, which has God for its Author, is a Sacrament, that is, a sacred sign of that most holy union that binds Christ our Lord to His Church.
That this is the true and proper meaning of the Apostle's words is shown by the ancient holy Fathers who have interpreted them, and by the explanation furnished by the Council of Trent.20 It is indubitable, therefore, that the Apostle compares the husband to Christ, and the wife to the Church; that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church;21 and that for this very reason the husband should love his wife and the wife love and respect her husband. For Christ loved his church, and gave himself for her;22 while as the same Apostle teaches, the church is subject to Christ.23
That grace is also signified and conferred by this Sacrament, which are two properties that constitute the principal characteristics of each Sacrament, is declared by the Council as follows: By his passion Christ, the Author and Perfecter of the venerable Sacraments, merited for us the grace that perfects the natural love (of husband and wife), confirms their indissoluble union, and sanctifies them.24 It should, therefore, be shown that by the grace of this Sacrament husband and wife are joined in the bonds of mutual love, cherish affection one towards the other, avoid illicit attachments and passions, and so keep their marriage honourable in all things, . . . and their bed undefiled.25 *

Marriage before Christ
IT WAS NOT A SACRAMENT
How much the Sacrament of Matrimony is superior to the marriages made both previous to and under the (Mosaic) Law may be judged from the fact that though the Gentiles themselves were convinced there was something divine in marriage, and for that reason regarded promiscuous intercourse as contrary to the law of nature, while they also considered fornication, adultery and other kinds of impurity to be punishable offences; yet their marriages never had any sacramental value.
Among the Jews the laws of marriage were observed far more religiously, and it cannot be doubted that their unions were endowed with more holiness. As they had received from God the promise that in the seed of Abraham all nations should be blessed,26 it was justly considered by them to be a very pious duty to bring forth children, and thus contribute to the propagation of the chosen people from whom Christ the Lord and Saviour was to derive His birth in His human nature. Still their unions also fell short of the real nature of a Sacrament.

BEFORE CHRIST MARRIAGE HAD FALLEN FROM ITS PRIMITIVE UNITY AND INDISSOLUBILITY
It should be added that if we consider the law of nature after the fall and the Law of Moses we shall easily see that marriage had fallen from its original honor and purity. Thus under the law of nature we read of many of the ancient Patriarchs that they had several wives at the same time; while under the Law of Moses it was permissible, should cause exist, to repudiate one's wife by giving her a bill of divorce. Both these (concessions) have been suppressed by the law of the Gospel,28 and marriage has been restored to its original state.

Christ Restored to Marriage its Primitive Qualities
UNITY OF MARRIAGE
Though some of the ancient Patriarchs are not to be blamed for having married several wives, since they did not act thus without divine dispensation, yet Christ our Lord has clearly shown that polygamy is not in keeping with the nature of Matrimony. These are His words: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh; and He adds: wherefore they are no more two but one flesh.29 In these words He makes it clear that God instituted marriage to be the union of two, and only two persons. The same truth He has taught very distinctly in another passage, wherein He says: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.30 For if it were lawful for a man to have several wives, there is no reason why he who takes to himself a second wife, along with the wife he already has, should be regarded as more guilty of adultery than if he had dismissed his first wife and taken a second.
Hence it is that when an infidel who, following the customs of his country has married several wives, happens to be converted to the true religion, the Church orders him to dismiss all but the first, and regard her alone as his true and lawful wife.*

INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE
The self-same testimony of Christ our Lord easily proves that the marriage-tie cannot be broken by any sort of divorce. For if by a bill of divorce a woman were freed from the law that binds her to her husband, she might marry another husband without being in the least guilty of adultery. Yet our Lord says clearly: Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery.31 Hence it is plain that the bond of marriage can be dissolved by death alone, as is confirmed by the Apostle when he says: A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die she is at liberty; let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord;32 and again: To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.33 To the wife, then, who for a just cause has left her husband, the Apostle offers this alternative: Let her either remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. Nor does holy Church permit husband and wife to separate without weighty reasons.

ADVANTAGES OF INDISSOLUBILITY
Lest, however, the law of Matrimony should seem too severe on account of its absolute indissolubility, the advantages of this indissolubility should be pointed out.
The first (beneficial consequence) is that men are given to understand that in entering Matrimony virtue and congeniality of disposition are to be preferred to wealth or beauty - a circumstance that cannot but prove of the very highest advantage to the interests of society at large.
In the second place, if marriage could be dissolved by divorce, married persons would hardly ever be without causes of disunion, which would be daily supplied by the old enemy of peace and purity; while, on the contrary, now that the faithful must remember that even though separated as to bed and board, they remain none the less bound by the bond of marriage with no hope of marrying another, they are by this very fact rendered less prone to strife and discord. And even if it sometimes happens that husband and wife become separated, and are unable to bear the want of their partnership any longer, they are easily reconciled by friends and return to their common life.
The pastor should not here omit the salutary admonition of St. Augustine who, to convince the faithful that they should not consider it a hardship to receive back the wife they have put away for adultery, provided she repents of her crime, observes: Why should not the Christian husband receive back his wife when the Church receives her? And why should not the wife pardon her adulterous but penitent husband when Christ has already pardoned him?34 True it is that Scripture calls him foolish who keepeth an adulteress;35 but the meaning refers to her who refuses to repent of her crime and quit the disgraceful course she has entered on.
From all this it will be clear that Christian marriage is far superior in dignity and perfection to that of Gentiles and Jews.

The Three Blessings of Marriage
The faithful should also be shown that there are three blessings of marriage: children, fidelity and the Sacrament. These are blessings which to some degree compensate for the inconveniences referred to by the Apostle in the words: Such shall have tribulation of the flesh,36 and they lead to this other result that sexual intercourse, which is sinful outside of marriage, is rendered right and honorable.

OFFSPRING
The first blessing, then, is a family, that is to say, children born of a true and lawful wife. So highly did the Apostle esteem this blessing that he says: The woman shall be saved by bearing children.37 These words are to be understood not only of bearing children, but also of bringing them up and training them to the practice of piety; for the Apostle immediately subjoins: If she continue in faith. Scripture says: Hast thou children? Instruct them and bow down their necks from childhood.38 The same is taught by the Apostle; while Tobias, Job and other holy Patriarchs in Sacred Scripture furnish us with beautiful examples of such training. The duties of both parents and children will, however, be set forth in detail when we come to speak of the fourth Commandment.

FIDELITY
The second advantage of marriage is faith, not indeed that virtue which we receive in Baptism; but the fidelity which binds wife to husband and husband to wife in such a way that they mutually deliver to each other power over their bodies, promising at the same time never to violate the holy bond of Matrimony.39 This is easily inferred from the words pronounced by Adam when taking Eve as his wife, and which were afterwards confirmed by Christ our Lord in the Gospel: Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh.40 It is also inferred from the words of the Apostle: The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and in like manner, the husband has not power of his own body but the wife.41 Justly, then, did the Lord in the Old Law ordain the most severe penalties against adulterers who violated this conjugal fidelity.42
Matrimonial fidelity also demands that they love one another with a special, holy and pure love; not as adulterers love one another but as Christ loves His Church. This is the rule laid down by the Apostle when he says: Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the church.43 And surely (Christ's) love for His Church was immense; it was a love inspired not by His own advantage, but only by the advantage of His spouse.

SACRAMENT
The third advantage is called the Sacrament, that is to say, the indissoluble bond of marriage. As the Apostle has it: The Lord commanded that the wife depart not from the husband, and if she depart that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife.44 And truly, if marriage as a Sacrament represents the union of Christ with His Church, it also necessarily follows that just as Christ never separates Himself from His Church, so in like manner the wife can never be separated from her husband in so far as regards the marriage-tie.*

The Duties of Married People
The more easily to preserve the holy state (of marriage) from dissensions, the duties of husband and wife as inculcated by St. Paul and by the Prince of the Apostles must be explained.

DUTIES OF A HUSBAND
It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honorably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion.45 Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers., that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.
The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.
He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties.

DUTIES OF A WIFE
On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.46
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent.
Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.

The Law of the Church on Marriage
THE RITE TO BE OBSERVED
Having explained these matters, pastors should next teach what rites are to be observed in contracting marriage. There is no need, however, that we dwell on these questions here. The Council of Trent has laid down fully and accurately what must be chiefly observed; and this decree will not be unknown to pastors. It will suffice, then, to admonish them to study to make themselves acquainted, from the doctrine of the Council, with what regards this subject, and to explain it carefully to the faithful.47
But above all, lest young persons, whose period of life is marked by extreme indiscretion, should be deceived by a merely nominal marriage and foolishly rush into sinful love-unions, the pastor cannot too frequently remind them that there can be no true and valid marriage unless it be contracted in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest commissioned by him, or by the Ordinary, and that of a certain number of witnesses.

THE IMPEDIMENTS OF MARRIAGE
The impediments of marriage are also to be explained, a subject so minutely and accurately treated by many grave and learned writers on the virtues and vices as to render it an easy task to draw upon their labors, particularly as the pastor has occasion to have such works continually in his hands. The instructions, therefore, which such books contain, and also the decrees of the Council with regard to the impediments arising from spiritual relationship, from public honesty, and from fornication, the pastor should peruse with attention and expound with care.48 *

The Recipient of Matrimony
DISPOSITIONS WITH WHICH THE SACRAMENT IS TO BE APPROACHED
From the above may he learned the dispositions with which the faithful should contract matrimony. They should consider that they are about to enter upon a work that is not human but divine. The example of the Fathers of the Old Law, who esteemed marriage as a most holy and religious rite, although it had not then been raised to the dignity of a Sacrament, shows the singular purity of soul and piety (with which Christians should approach marriage).*

CONSENT OF PARENTS
Among other things, children should be exhorted earnestly that they owe as a tribute of respect to their parents, or to those under whose guardianship and authority they are placed, not to contract marriage without their knowledge, still less in defiance of their express wishes. It should be observed that in the Old Law children were always given in marriage by their fathers; and that the will of the parent is always to have very great influence on the choice of the child, is clear from these words of the Apostle: He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better.49

THE USE OF MARRIAGE
Finally, the use of marriage is a subject which pastors should so treat as to avoid any expression that may be unfit to meet the ears of the faithful, that may be calculated to offend the piety of some, or excite the laughter of others. The words of the Lord are chaste words;50 and the teacher of a Christian people should make use of the same kind of language, one that is characterized by singular gravity and purity of soul. Two lessons of instruction to the faithful are, then, to be specially insisted upon.
The first is that marriage is not to be used for purposes of lust or sensuality, but that its use is to be restrained within those limits which, as we have already shown, have been fixed by the Lord. It should be remembered that the Apostle admonishes: They that have wives, let them be as though they had them not,51 and that St. Jerome says: The love which a wise man cherishes towards his wife is the result of judgment, not the impulse of passion; he governs the impetuosity of desire, and is not hurried into indulgence. There is nothing more shameful than that a husband should love his wife as an adulteress.52
But as every blessing is to be obtained from God by holy prayer, the faithful are also to be taught sometimes to abstain from the marriage debt, in order to devote themselves to prayer. Let the faithful understand that (this religious continence), according to the proper and holy injunction of our predecessors, is particularly to be observed for at least three days before Communion, and oftener during the solemn fast of Lent.
Thus will they find the blessings of marriage to be daily increased by an abundance of divine grace; and living in the pursuit of piety, they will not only spend this life in peace and tranquillity, but will also repose in the true and firm hope, which confoundeth not,53 of arriving, through the divine goodness, at the possession of that life which is eternal.*
Very little in the way of ABC/NFP so called.  On the Commandment against Murder, which is refered above, only says this
Quote
There are, however, two cases in which guilt attaches (to accidental death). The first case is when death results from an unlawful act; when, for instance, a person kicks or strikes a woman in a state of pregnancy, and abortion follows. The consequence, it is true, may not have been intended, but this does not exculpate the offender, because the act of striking a pregnant woman is in itself unlawful.
to this I'll add from Trent
Quote
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT
"Thou shalt not commit adultery"
THE POSITION OF THIS COMMANDMENT IN THE DECALOGUE IS MOST SUITABLE
The bond between man and wife is one of the closest, and nothing can be more gratifying to both than to know that they are objects of mutual and special affection. On the other hand, nothing inflicts deeper anguish than to feel that the legitimate love which one owes the other has been transferred elsewhere. Rightly, then, and in its natural order, is the Commandment which protects human life against the hand of the murderer, followed by that which forbids adultery and which aims to prevent anyone from injuring or destroying by such a crime the holy and honorable union of marriage - a union which is generally the source of ardent affection and love.

IMPORTANCE OF CAREFUL INSTRUCTION ON THIS COMMANDMENT
In the explanation of this Commandment, however, the pastor has need of great caution and prudence, and should treat with great delicacy a subject which requires brevity rather than copiousness of exposition. For it is to be feared that if he explained in too great detail or at length the ways in which this Commandment is violated, he might unintentionally speak of subjects which, instead of extinguishing, usually serve rather to inflame corrupt passion.
As, however, the precept contains many things which cannot be passed over in silence, the pastor should explain them in their proper order and place.*

TWO PARTS OF THIS COMMANDMENT
This Commandment, then, resolves itself into two heads; the one expressed, which prohibits adultery; the other implied, which inculcates purity of mind and body.
What this Commandment Prohibits

ADULTERY FORBIDDEN
To begin with the prohibitory part (of the Commandment), adultery is the defilement of the marriage bed, whether it be one's own or another's. If a married man have intercourse with an unmarried woman, he violates the integrity of his marriage bed; and if an unmarried man have intercourse with a married woman, he defiles the sanctity of the marriage bed of another.

OTHER SINS AGAINST CHASTITY ARE FORBIDDEN
But that every species of immodesty and impurity are included in this prohibition of adultery, is proved by the testimonies of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose;2 and that such is the meaning of the Commandment is borne out by the Old, as well as the New Testament. In the writings of Moses, besides adultery, other sins against chastity are said to have been punished. Thus the book of Genesis records the judgment of Judah against his daughter-in-law.
Interesting, nothing on Onan.
Quote
3 In Deuteronomy is found the excellent law of Moses, that there should be no harlot amongst the daughters of Israel.4 Take heed to keep thyself, my son, from all fornication,5 is the exhortation of Tobias to his son; and in Ecclesiasticus we read: Be ashamed of looking upon a harlot.6
In the Gospel, too, Christ the Lord says: From the heart come forth adulteries and fornications, which defile a man.7 The Apostle Paul expresses his detestation of this crime frequently, and in the strongest terms: This is the will of God, your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication;8 Fly fornication;9 Keep not company with fornicators;10 Fornication, and all uncleanness and covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you;11 Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites shall possess the kingdom of God.12

WHY ADULTERY IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED
But the reason why adultery is expressly forbidden is because in addition to the turpitude which it shares with other kinds of incontinence, it adds the sin of injustice, not only against our neighbor, but also against civil society.
Again it is certain that he who abstains not from other sins against chastity, will easily fall into the crime of adultery. By the prohibition of adultery, therefore, we at once see that every sort of immodesty and impurity by which the body is defiled is prohibited. Nay, that every inward thought against chastity is forbidden by this Commandment is clear, as well from the very force of the law, which is evidently spiritual, as also from these words of Christ the Lord: You have heard that it was said to them of old: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.13
These are the points which we have deemed proper matter for public instruction of the faithful. The pastor, however, should add the decrees of the Council of Trent against adulterers, and those who keep harlots and concubines,14 omitting many other species of immodesty and lust, of which each individual is to be admonished privately, as circumstances of time and person may require.*

What this Commandment Prescribes
PURITY ENJOINED
We now come to explain the positive part of the precept. The faithful are to be taught and earnestly exhorted to cultivate continence and chastity with all care, to cleanse themselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God.15
First of all they should be taught that although the virtue of chastity shines with a brighter lustre in those who make the holy and religious vow of virginity, nevertheless it is a virtue which belongs also to those who lead a life of celibacy; or who, in the married state, preserve themselves pure and undefiled from unlawful desire.*
Reflections which Help one to Practice Purity
The holy Fathers have taught us many means whereby to subdue the passions and to restrain sinful pleasure. The pastor, therefore, should make it his study to explain these accurately to the faithful, and should use the utmost diligence in their exposition. Of these means some are reflections, others are active measures.

IMPURITY EXCLUDES FROM HEAVEN
The first kind consists chiefly in our forming a just conception of the filthiness and evil of this sin; for such knowledge will lead one more easily to detest it. Now the evil of this crime we may learn from the fact that, on account of it, man is banished and excluded from the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all evils.

IMPURITY IS A FILTHY SIN
The above-mentioned calamity is indeed common to every mortal sin. But what is peculiar to this sin is that fornicators are said to sin against their own bodies, according to the words of the Apostle: Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body.16 The reason is that such a one does an injury to his own body by violating its sanctity. Hence St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, says: This is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication, that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God.17
Furthermore, what is still more criminal, the Christian who shamefully sins with a harlot makes the members of Christ the members of an harlot, according to these words of St. Paul: Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot is made one body?18 Moreover, a Christian, as St. Paul testifies, is the temple of the Holy Spirit;19 and to violate this temple is nothing else than to expel the Holy Spirit.

ADULTERY IS A GRAVE INJUSTICE
But the crime of adultery involves that of grievous injustice. If, as the Apostle says, they who are joined in wedlock are so subject to each other that neither has power or right over his or her body, but both are bound, as it were, by a mutual bond of subjection, the husband to accommodate himself to the will of the wife, the wife to the will of the husband; most certainly if either dissociate his or her person, which is the right of the other, from him or her to whom it is bound, the offender is guilty of an act of great injustice and wickedness.20

ADULTERY IS DISGRACEFUL
As dread of disgrace strongly stimulates to the performance of duty and deters from the commission of crime, the pastor should also teach that adultery brands its guilty perpetrators with an unusual stigma. He that is an adulterer, says Scripture, for the folly of his heart shall destroy his own soul: he gathereth to himself shame and dishonour, and his reproach shall not be blotted out.21

IMPURITY SEVERELY PUNISHED
The grievousness of the sin of adultery may be easily inferred from the severity of its punishment. According to the law promulgated by God in the Old Testament, the adulterer was stoned to death.22 Nay more, because of the criminal passion of one man, not only the perpetrator of the crime, but a whole city was destroyed, as we read with regard to the Sichemites.23 The Sacred Scriptures abound with examples of the divine vengeance, such as the destruction of Sodom and of the neighboring cities,24 the punishment of the Israelites who committed fornication in the wilderness with the daughters of Moab,25 and the slaughter of the Benjamites.26 These examples the pastor can easily make use of to deter men from shameful lust.*

IMPURITY BLINDS THE MIND AND HARDENS THE HEART
But even though the adulterer may escape the punishment of death, he does not escape the great pains and torments that often overtake such sins as his. He becomes afflicted with blindness of mind, a most severe punishment; he is lost to all regard for God, for reputation, for honor, for family, and even for life; and thus, utterly abandoned and worthless, he is undeserving of confidence in any matter of moment, and becomes unfitted to discharge any kind of duty.
Of this we find examples in the persons of David and of Solomon. David had no sooner fallen into the crime of adultery than he degenerated into a character the very reverse of what he had been before; from the mildest of men he became so cruel as to consign to death Urias, one of his most deserving subjects.27 Solomon, having abandoned himself to the lust of women, gave up the true religion to follow strange gods.28 This sin, therefore, as Osee observes, takes away man's heart and often blinds his understanding.29

Means of Practicing Purity
AVOIDANCE OF IDLENESS
We now come to the remedies which consist in action. The first is studiously to avoid idleness; for, according to Ezechiel, it was by yielding to the enervating influence of idleness that the Sodomites plunged into the most shameful crime of criminal lust.30 *

TEMPERANCE
In the next place, intemperance is carefully to be avoided. I fed them to the full, says the Prophet, and they committed adultery.31 An overloaded stomach begets impurity. This our Lord intimates in these words: Take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness.32 Be not drunk with wine, says the Apostle, wherein is luxury.33 *

CUSTODY OF THE EYES
But the eyes, in particular, are the inlets to criminal passion, and to this refer these words of our Lord: If thine eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.34 The Prophets, also, frequently speak to the same effect. I made a covenant with mine eyes, says Job, that I would not so much as think upon a virgin.35 Finally, there are on record innumerable examples of the evils which have their origin in the indulgence of the eyes. It was thus that David sinned,36 thus that the king of Sichem fell,37 and thus also that the elders sinned who calumniated Susanna.38

AVOIDANCE OF IMMODEST DRESS
Too much display in dress, which especially attracts the eye, is but too frequently an occasion of sin. Hence the admonition of Ecclesiasticus: Turn away thy face from a woman dressed up.39
As women are given to excessive fondness for dress, it will not be unseasonable in the pastor to give some attention to the subject, and sometimes to admonish and reprove them in the impressive words of the Apostle Peter: Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel.40 St. Paul likewise says: Not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire.41 Many women adorned with gold and precious stones, have lost the only true ornament of their soul and body.*

AVOIDANCE OF IMPURE CONVERSATION, READING, PICTURES
Next to the sexual excitement, usually provoked by too studied an elegance of dress, follows another, which is indecent and obscene conversation. Obscene language is a torch which lights up the worst passions of the young mind; and the Apostle has said, that evil communications corrupt good manners.42 Immodest and passionate songs and dances are most productive of this same effect and are, therefore, cautiously to be avoided.
In the same class are to be numbered soft and obscene books which must be avoided no less than indecent pictures. All such things possess a fatal influence in exciting to unlawful attractions, and in inflaming the mind of youth. In these matters the pastor should take special pains to see that the faithful most carefully observe the pious and prudent regulations of the Council of Trent.43

FREQUENTATION OF THE SACRAMENTS
If the occasions of sin which we have just enumerated be carefully avoided, almost every excitement to lust will be removed. But the most efficacious means for subduing its violence are frequent use of confession and Communion, as also unceasing and devout prayer to God, accompanied by fasting and almsdeeds. Chastity is a gift of God.44 To those who ask it aright He does not deny it; nor does He suffer us to be tempted beyond our strength.45

MORTIFICATION
But the body is to be mortified and the sensual appetites to be repressed not only by fasting, and particularly, by the fasts instituted by the Church, but also by watching, pious pilgrimages, and other works of austerity. By these and similar observances is the virtue of temperance chiefly manifested. In connection with this subject, St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: Every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things; and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible one.46 A little after he says: I chastise my body and bring it into subjection, lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. And in another place he says: Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence.47
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Trent3.php
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on November 10, 2010, 01:23:10 PM
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, his earnest desires must be in full accordance with those expressed by the Apostle when writing to the Corinthians: I would that all men were even as myself,1 that is, that all should embrace the virtue of continence. No greater happiness can befall the faithful in this life than to have their souls distracted by no worldly cares, the unruly desires of the flesh tranquilized and restrained, and the mind fixed on the practice of piety and the contemplation of heavenly things.
But as, according to the same Apostle, every one has his proper gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that;2 and as marriage is gifted with great and divine blessings, so much so as truly and properly to hold a place among the other Sacraments of the Catholic Church, and as its celebration was honored by the presence of our Lord Himself,3 it is clear that this subject should be explained, particularly since we find that St. Paul and the Prince of the Apostles have in many places minutely described to us not only the dignity but also the duties of the married state. Filled with the Spirit of God (these Apostles) well understood the numerous and important advantages which must flow to Christian society from a knowledge, and an inviolable observance by the faithful of the sanctity of marriage; while they saw that from ignorance or disregard of (its holiness), many and serious calamities and losses must be brought upon the Church.

Nature and Meaning of Marriage
The nature and meaning of marriage are, therefore, to be first explained. Vice not infrequently assumes the semblance of virtue, and hence care must be taken that the faithful be not deceived by a false appearance of marriage, and thus stain their souls with turpitude and wicked lusts. To explain this subject, let us begin with the meaning of the word itself.

NAMES OF THIS SACRAMENT
The word matrimony is derived from the fact that the principal object which a female should propose to herself in marriage is to become a mother; or from the fact that to a mother it belongs to conceive, bring forth and train her offspring.*
It is also called wedlock (conjugium)* from joining together, because a lawful wife is united to her husband, as it were, by a common yoke.
It is called nuptials,* because, as St. Ambrose observes, the bride veiled her face through modesty - a custom which would also seem to imply that she was to be subject and obedient to her husband.4

DEFINITION OF MATRIMONY
Matrimony, according to the general opinion of theologians, is defined: The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.
In order that the different parts of this definition may be better understood, it should be taught that, although a perfect marriage has all the following conditions, - namely, internal consent, external compact expressed by words, the obligation and tie which arise from the contract, and the marriage debt by which it is consummated; yet the obligation and tie expressed by the word union alone have the force and nature of marriage.
The special character of this union is marked by the word conjugal. This word is added because other contracts, by which men and women bind themselves to help each other in consideration of money received or other reason, differ essentially from matrimony.
Next follow the words between qualified persons; for person excluded by law cannot contract marriage, and if they do their marriage is invalid. Persons, for instance, within the fourth degree of kindred, a boy before his fourteenth year, and a female before her twelfth, the ages established by law,* cannot contract marriage.
The words, which obliges them to live together throughout life, express the indissolubility of the tie which binds husband and wife.*

ESSENCE AND CAUSE OF MARRIAGE
Hence it is evident that marriage consists in the tie spoken of above. Some eminent theologians, it is true, say that it consists in the consent, as when they define it: The consent of the man and woman. But we are to understand them to mean that the consent is the efficient cause of marriage, which is the doctrine of the Fathers of the Council of Florence;5 because, without the consent and contract, the obligation and tie cannot possibly exist.

The Kind of Consent Required in Matrimony
It is most necessary that the consent be expressed in words denoting present time.

MUTUAL
Marriage is not a mere donation, but a mutual agreement; and therefore the consent of one of the parties is insufficient for marriage, while the mutual consent of both is essential.

EXTERNAL
To declare this consent words are obviously necessary. If the internal consent alone, without any external indication, were sufficient for marriage, it would then seem to follow as a necessary consequence, that were two persons, living in the most separate and distant countries, to consent to marry, they would contract a true and indissoluble marriage, even before they had mutually signified to each other their consent by letter or messenger - a consequence as repugnant to reason as it is opposed to the decrees and established usage of holy Church.

PRESENT
Rightly was it said that the consent must be expressed in words which have reference to present time; for words which signify a future time, promise, but do not actually unite in marriage. Besides, it is evident that what is to be done has no present existence, and what has no present existence can have little or no firmness or stability. Hence a man who has only promised to marry a certain woman acquires by the promise no marriage rights, since his promise has not yet been fulfilled. Such promises are, it is true, obligatory, and their violation involves the offending party in a breach of faith. But he who has once entered into the matrimonial alliance, regret it as he afterwards may, cannot possibly change, or invalidate, or undo what has been done.
As, then, the marriage contract is not a mere promise, but a transfer of right, by which the man actually yields the dominion of his body to the woman, the woman the dominion of her body to the man, it must therefore be made in words which designate the present time, the force of which words abides with undiminished efficacy from the moment of their utterance, and binds the husband and wife by a tie that cannot be broken.
Instead of words, however, it may be sufficient for marriage to substitute a nod or other unequivocal sign of internal consent. Even silence, when the result of female modesty, may be sufficient, provided the parents answer for their daughter.

The Essence of Marriage Constituted by the Consent
Hence pastors should teach the faithful that the nature and force of marriage consists in the tie and obligation; and that, without consummation, the consent of the parties, expressed in the manner already explained, is sufficient to constitute a true marriage. It is certain that our first parents before their fall, when, according to the holy Fathers, no consummation took place, were really united in marriage.6 Hence the Fathers say that marriage consists not in its use, but in the consent. This doctrine is repeated by St. Ambrose in his book On Virgins.7 *

Twofold Consideration of Marriage
When these matters have been explained, it should be taught that matrimony is to be considered from two points of view either as a natural union, since it was not invented by man but instituted by nature; or as a Sacrament, the efficacy of which transcends the order of nature.

Marriage as a Natural Contract
As grace perfects nature, and as that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual,8 the order of our matter requires that we first treat of Matrimony as a natural contract, imposing natural duties, and next consider what pertains to it as a Sacrament.


INSTITUTED BY GOD
The faithful, therefore, are to be taught in the first place that marriage was instituted by God. We read in Genesis that God created them male and female, and blessed them, saying: "Increase and multiply"; and also: "It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself." And a little further on: But for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam; and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built a rib which he took from Adam into a woman, and brought her to Adam; and Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man: wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be two in one flesh."9 These words, according to the authority of our Lord Himself, as we read in St. Matthew, prove the divine institution of Matrimony.10 *

MARRIAGE IS INDISSOLUBLE BY DIVINE LAW
Not only did God institute marriage; He also, as the Council of Trent declares, rendered it perpetual and indissoluble.11 What God has joined together, says our Lord, let not man separate.12
Although it belongs to marriage as a natural contract to be indissoluble, yet its indissolubility arises principally from its nature as a Sacrament, as it is the sacramental character that, in all its natural relations, elevates marriage to the highest perfection. In any event, dissolubility is at once opposed to the proper education of children, and to the other advantages of marriage.

MARRIAGE NOT OBLIGATORY ON ALL
The words increase and multiply,13 which were uttered by the Lord, do not impose on every individual an obligation to marry, but only declare the purpose of the institution of marriage. Now that the human race is widely diffused, not only is there no law rendering marriage obligatory, but, on the contrary, virginity is highly exalted and strongly recommended in Scripture as superior to marriage, and as a state of greater perfection and holiness. For our Lord and Saviour taught as follows: He that can take it, let him take it;14 and the Apostle says: Concerning virgins I have no commandment from the Lord; but I give counsel as having obtained mercy from the Lord to be faithful.15

THE MOTIVES AND ENDS OF MARRIAGE
We have now to explain why man and woman should be joined in marriage. First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age.
A second reason for marriage is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God. That such was the principal object of the holy Patriarchs when they married is clear from Scripture. Hence the Angel, when informing Tobias of the means of repelling the violent assaults of the evil demon, says: I will show thee who they are over whom the devil can prevail; for they who in such manner receive matrimony as to shut out God from themselves and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule which have not understanding, over them the devil has power. He then adds: Thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children.16 It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime - nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.
Deinde subiecit: „Accipics virginem cum timore Domini, amore filiorum magis, quam libidinc ductus, ut in semine Abrahae benedictioncm in filiis consequaris." Atque una eliam haec causa fuit, cur Deus ab initio matrimonium constituerit. Quare fit, ut illorum sit scelus gravissimum, qui matrimonio iuncti medicamcntis vel conccptum impediunt, vel partum abigunt; haec enim homicidarum impia conspiratio existimanda est.
A third reason has been added, as a consequence of the fall of our first parents. On account of the loss of original innocence the passions began to rise in rebellion against right reason; and man, conscious of his own frailty and unwilling to fight the battles of the flesh, is supplied by marriage with an antidote by which to avoid sins of lust. For fear of fornication, says the Apostle, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband;17 and a little after, having recommended to married persons a temporary abstinence from the marriage debt, to give themselves to prayer, he adds: Return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
These are ends, some one of which, those who desire to contract marriage piously and religiously, as becomes the children of the Saints, should propose to themselves. If to these we add other causes which induce to contract marriage, and, in choosing a wife, to prefer one person to another, such as the desire of leaving an heir, wealth, beauty, illustrious descent, congeniality of disposition - such motives, because not inconsistent with the holiness of marriage, are not to be condemned. We do not find that the Sacred Scriptures condemn the Patriarch Jacob for having chosen Rachel for her beauty, in preference to Lia.18 *
So much should be explained regarding Matrimony as a natural contract.

Marriage Considered as a Sacrament
It will now be necessary to explain that Matrimony is far superior in its sacramental aspect and aims at any incomparably higher end. For as marriage, as a natural union, was instituted from the beginning to propagate the human race; so was the sacramental dignity subsequently conferred upon it in order that a people might be begotten and brought up for the service and worship of the true God and of Christ our Saviour.
Thus when Christ our Lord wished to give a sign of the intimate union that exists between Him and His Church and of His immense love for us, He chose especially the sacred union of man and wife. That this sign was a most appropriate one will readily appear from the fact that of all human relations there is none that binds so closely as the marriage-tie, and from the fact that husband and wife are bound to one another by the bonds of the greatest affection and love. Hence it is that Holy Writ so frequently represents to us the divine union of Christ and the Church under the figure of marriage.

MARRIAGE IS A SACRAMENT
That Matrimony is a Sacrament the Church, following the authority of the Apostles, has always held to be certain and incontestable. In his Epistle to the Ephesians he writes: Men should love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall adhere to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.19 Now his expression, this is a great sacrament, undoubtedly refers to Matrimony, and must be taken to mean that the union of man and wife, which has God for its Author, is a Sacrament, that is, a sacred sign of that most holy union that binds Christ our Lord to His Church.
That this is the true and proper meaning of the Apostle's words is shown by the ancient holy Fathers who have interpreted them, and by the explanation furnished by the Council of Trent.20 It is indubitable, therefore, that the Apostle compares the husband to Christ, and the wife to the Church; that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church;21 and that for this very reason the husband should love his wife and the wife love and respect her husband. For Christ loved his church, and gave himself for her;22 while as the same Apostle teaches, the church is subject to Christ.23
That grace is also signified and conferred by this Sacrament, which are two properties that constitute the principal characteristics of each Sacrament, is declared by the Council as follows: By his passion Christ, the Author and Perfecter of the venerable Sacraments, merited for us the grace that perfects the natural love (of husband and wife), confirms their indissoluble union, and sanctifies them.24 It should, therefore, be shown that by the grace of this Sacrament husband and wife are joined in the bonds of mutual love, cherish affection one towards the other, avoid illicit attachments and passions, and so keep their marriage honourable in all things, . . . and their bed undefiled.25 *

Marriage before Christ
IT WAS NOT A SACRAMENT
How much the Sacrament of Matrimony is superior to the marriages made both previous to and under the (Mosaic) Law may be judged from the fact that though the Gentiles themselves were convinced there was something divine in marriage, and for that reason regarded promiscuous intercourse as contrary to the law of nature, while they also considered fornication, adultery and other kinds of impurity to be punishable offences; yet their marriages never had any sacramental value.
Among the Jews the laws of marriage were observed far more religiously, and it cannot be doubted that their unions were endowed with more holiness. As they had received from God the promise that in the seed of Abraham all nations should be blessed,26 it was justly considered by them to be a very pious duty to bring forth children, and thus contribute to the propagation of the chosen people from whom Christ the Lord and Saviour was to derive His birth in His human nature. Still their unions also fell short of the real nature of a Sacrament.

BEFORE CHRIST MARRIAGE HAD FALLEN FROM ITS PRIMITIVE UNITY AND INDISSOLUBILITY
It should be added that if we consider the law of nature after the fall and the Law of Moses we shall easily see that marriage had fallen from its original honor and purity. Thus under the law of nature we read of many of the ancient Patriarchs that they had several wives at the same time; while under the Law of Moses it was permissible, should cause exist, to repudiate one's wife by giving her a bill of divorce. Both these (concessions) have been suppressed by the law of the Gospel,28 and marriage has been restored to its original state.

Christ Restored to Marriage its Primitive Qualities
UNITY OF MARRIAGE
Though some of the ancient Patriarchs are not to be blamed for having married several wives, since they did not act thus without divine dispensation, yet Christ our Lord has clearly shown that polygamy is not in keeping with the nature of Matrimony. These are His words: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh; and He adds: wherefore they are no more two but one flesh.29 In these words He makes it clear that God instituted marriage to be the union of two, and only two persons. The same truth He has taught very distinctly in another passage, wherein He says: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.30 For if it were lawful for a man to have several wives, there is no reason why he who takes to himself a second wife, along with the wife he already has, should be regarded as more guilty of adultery than if he had dismissed his first wife and taken a second.
Hence it is that when an infidel who, following the customs of his country has married several wives, happens to be converted to the true religion, the Church orders him to dismiss all but the first, and regard her alone as his true and lawful wife.*

INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE
The self-same testimony of Christ our Lord easily proves that the marriage-tie cannot be broken by any sort of divorce. For if by a bill of divorce a woman were freed from the law that binds her to her husband, she might marry another husband without being in the least guilty of adultery. Yet our Lord says clearly: Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery.31 Hence it is plain that the bond of marriage can be dissolved by death alone, as is confirmed by the Apostle when he says: A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die she is at liberty; let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord;32 and again: To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.33 To the wife, then, who for a just cause has left her husband, the Apostle offers this alternative: Let her either remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. Nor does holy Church permit husband and wife to separate without weighty reasons.

ADVANTAGES OF INDISSOLUBILITY
Lest, however, the law of Matrimony should seem too severe on account of its absolute indissolubility, the advantages of this indissolubility should be pointed out.
The first (beneficial consequence) is that men are given to understand that in entering Matrimony virtue and congeniality of disposition are to be preferred to wealth or beauty - a circumstance that cannot but prove of the very highest advantage to the interests of society at large.
In the second place, if marriage could be dissolved by divorce, married persons would hardly ever be without causes of disunion, which would be daily supplied by the old enemy of peace and purity; while, on the contrary, now that the faithful must remember that even though separated as to bed and board, they remain none the less bound by the bond of marriage with no hope of marrying another, they are by this very fact rendered less prone to strife and discord. And even if it sometimes happens that husband and wife become separated, and are unable to bear the want of their partnership any longer, they are easily reconciled by friends and return to their common life.
The pastor should not here omit the salutary admonition of St. Augustine who, to convince the faithful that they should not consider it a hardship to receive back the wife they have put away for adultery, provided she repents of her crime, observes: Why should not the Christian husband receive back his wife when the Church receives her? And why should not the wife pardon her adulterous but penitent husband when Christ has already pardoned him?34 True it is that Scripture calls him foolish who keepeth an adulteress;35 but the meaning refers to her who refuses to repent of her crime and quit the disgraceful course she has entered on.
From all this it will be clear that Christian marriage is far superior in dignity and perfection to that of Gentiles and Jews.

The Three Blessings of Marriage
The faithful should also be shown that there are three blessings of marriage: children, fidelity and the Sacrament. These are blessings which to some degree compensate for the inconveniences referred to by the Apostle in the words: Such shall have tribulation of the flesh,36 and they lead to this other result that sexual intercourse, which is sinful outside of marriage, is rendered right and honorable.

OFFSPRING
The first blessing, then, is a family, that is to say, children born of a true and lawful wife. So highly did the Apostle esteem this blessing that he says: The woman shall be saved by bearing children.37 These words are to be understood not only of bearing children, but also of bringing them up and training them to the practice of piety; for the Apostle immediately subjoins: If she continue in faith. Scripture says: Hast thou children? Instruct them and bow down their necks from childhood.38 The same is taught by the Apostle; while Tobias, Job and other holy Patriarchs in Sacred Scripture furnish us with beautiful examples of such training. The duties of both parents and children will, however, be set forth in detail when we come to speak of the fourth Commandment.

FIDELITY
The second advantage of marriage is faith, not indeed that virtue which we receive in Baptism; but the fidelity which binds wife to husband and husband to wife in such a way that they mutually deliver to each other power over their bodies, promising at the same time never to violate the holy bond of Matrimony.39 This is easily inferred from the words pronounced by Adam when taking Eve as his wife, and which were afterwards confirmed by Christ our Lord in the Gospel: Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh.40 It is also inferred from the words of the Apostle: The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and in like manner, the husband has not power of his own body but the wife.41 Justly, then, did the Lord in the Old Law ordain the most severe penalties against adulterers who violated this conjugal fidelity.42
Matrimonial fidelity also demands that they love one another with a special, holy and pure love; not as adulterers love one another but as Christ loves His Church. This is the rule laid down by the Apostle when he says: Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the church.43 And surely (Christ's) love for His Church was immense; it was a love inspired not by His own advantage, but only by the advantage of His spouse.

SACRAMENT
The third advantage is called the Sacrament, that is to say, the indissoluble bond of marriage. As the Apostle has it: The Lord commanded that the wife depart not from the husband, and if she depart that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife.44 And truly, if marriage as a Sacrament represents the union of Christ with His Church, it also necessarily follows that just as Christ never separates Himself from His Church, so in like manner the wife can never be separated from her husband in so far as regards the marriage-tie.*

The Duties of Married People
The more easily to preserve the holy state (of marriage) from dissensions, the duties of husband and wife as inculcated by St. Paul and by the Prince of the Apostles must be explained.

DUTIES OF A HUSBAND
It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honorably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion.45 Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers., that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.
The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.
He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties.

DUTIES OF A WIFE
On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.46
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent.
Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.

The Law of the Church on Marriage
THE RITE TO BE OBSERVED
Having explained these matters, pastors should next teach what rites are to be observed in contracting marriage. There is no need, however, that we dwell on these questions here. The Council of Trent has laid down fully and accurately what must be chiefly observed; and this decree will not be unknown to pastors. It will suffice, then, to admonish them to study to make themselves acquainted, from the doctrine of the Council, with what regards this subject, and to explain it carefully to the faithful.47
But above all, lest young persons, whose period of life is marked by extreme indiscretion, should be deceived by a merely nominal marriage and foolishly rush into sinful love-unions, the pastor cannot too frequently remind them that there can be no true and valid marriage unless it be contracted in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest commissioned by him, or by the Ordinary, and that of a certain number of witnesses.

THE IMPEDIMENTS OF MARRIAGE
The impediments of marriage are also to be explained, a subject so minutely and accurately treated by many grave and learned writers on the virtues and vices as to render it an easy task to draw upon their labors, particularly as the pastor has occasion to have such works continually in his hands. The instructions, therefore, which such books contain, and also the decrees of the Council with regard to the impediments arising from spiritual relationship, from public honesty, and from fornication, the pastor should peruse with attention and expound with care.48 *

The Recipient of Matrimony
DISPOSITIONS WITH WHICH THE SACRAMENT IS TO BE APPROACHED
From the above may he learned the dispositions with which the faithful should contract matrimony. They should consider that they are about to enter upon a work that is not human but divine. The example of the Fathers of the Old Law, who esteemed marriage as a most holy and religious rite, although it had not then been raised to the dignity of a Sacrament, shows the singular purity of soul and piety (with which Christians should approach marriage).*

CONSENT OF PARENTS
Among other things, children should be exhorted earnestly that they owe as a tribute of respect to their parents, or to those under whose guardianship and authority they are placed, not to contract marriage without their knowledge, still less in defiance of their express wishes. It should be observed that in the Old Law children were always given in marriage by their fathers; and that the will of the parent is always to have very great influence on the choice of the child, is clear from these words of the Apostle: He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better.49

THE USE OF MARRIAGE
Finally, the use of marriage is a subject which pastors should so treat as to avoid any expression that may be unfit to meet the ears of the faithful, that may be calculated to offend the piety of some, or excite the laughter of others. The words of the Lord are chaste words;50 and the teacher of a Christian people should make use of the same kind of language, one that is characterized by singular gravity and purity of soul. Two lessons of instruction to the faithful are, then, to be specially insisted upon.
The first is that marriage is not to be used for purposes of lust or sensuality, but that its use is to be restrained within those limits which, as we have already shown, have been fixed by the Lord. It should be remembered that the Apostle admonishes: They that have wives, let them be as though they had them not,51 and that St. Jerome says: The love which a wise man cherishes towards his wife is the result of judgment, not the impulse of passion; he governs the impetuosity of desire, and is not hurried into indulgence. There is nothing more shameful than that a husband should love his wife as an adulteress.52
But as every blessing is to be obtained from God by holy prayer, the faithful are also to be taught sometimes to abstain from the marriage debt, in order to devote themselves to prayer. Let the faithful understand that (this religious continence), according to the proper and holy injunction of our predecessors, is particularly to be observed for at least three days before Communion, and oftener during the solemn fast of Lent.
Thus will they find the blessings of marriage to be daily increased by an abundance of divine grace; and living in the pursuit of piety, they will not only spend this life in peace and tranquillity, but will also repose in the true and firm hope, which confoundeth not,53 of arriving, through the divine goodness, at the possession of that life which is eternal.*
Very little in the way of ABC/NFP so called.  On the Commandment against Murder, which is refered above, only says this
Quote
There are, however, two cases in which guilt attaches (to accidental death). The first case is when death results from an unlawful act; when, for instance, a person kicks or strikes a woman in a state of pregnancy, and abortion follows. The consequence, it is true, may not have been intended, but this does not exculpate the offender, because the act of striking a pregnant woman is in itself unlawful.
to this I'll add from Trent
Quote
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT
"Thou shalt not commit adultery"
THE POSITION OF THIS COMMANDMENT IN THE DECALOGUE IS MOST SUITABLE
The bond between man and wife is one of the closest, and nothing can be more gratifying to both than to know that they are objects of mutual and special affection. On the other hand, nothing inflicts deeper anguish than to feel that the legitimate love which one owes the other has been transferred elsewhere. Rightly, then, and in its natural order, is the Commandment which protects human life against the hand of the murderer, followed by that which forbids adultery and which aims to prevent anyone from injuring or destroying by such a crime the holy and honorable union of marriage - a union which is generally the source of ardent affection and love.

IMPORTANCE OF CAREFUL INSTRUCTION ON THIS COMMANDMENT
In the explanation of this Commandment, however, the pastor has need of great caution and prudence, and should treat with great delicacy a subject which requires brevity rather than copiousness of exposition. For it is to be feared that if he explained in too great detail or at length the ways in which this Commandment is violated, he might unintentionally speak of subjects which, instead of extinguishing, usually serve rather to inflame corrupt passion.
As, however, the precept contains many things which cannot be passed over in silence, the pastor should explain them in their proper order and place.*

TWO PARTS OF THIS COMMANDMENT
This Commandment, then, resolves itself into two heads; the one expressed, which prohibits adultery; the other implied, which inculcates purity of mind and body.
What this Commandment Prohibits

ADULTERY FORBIDDEN
To begin with the prohibitory part (of the Commandment), adultery is the defilement of the marriage bed, whether it be one's own or another's. If a married man have intercourse with an unmarried woman, he violates the integrity of his marriage bed; and if an unmarried man have intercourse with a married woman, he defiles the sanctity of the marriage bed of another.

OTHER SINS AGAINST CHASTITY ARE FORBIDDEN
But that every species of immodesty and impurity are included in this prohibition of adultery, is proved by the testimonies of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose;2 and that such is the meaning of the Commandment is borne out by the Old, as well as the New Testament. In the writings of Moses, besides adultery, other sins against chastity are said to have been punished. Thus the book of Genesis records the judgment of Judah against his daughter-in-law.
Interesting, nothing on Onan.
Quote
3 In Deuteronomy is found the excellent law of Moses, that there should be no harlot amongst the daughters of Israel.4 Take heed to keep thyself, my son, from all fornication,5 is the exhortation of Tobias to his son; and in Ecclesiasticus we read: Be ashamed of looking upon a harlot.6
In the Gospel, too, Christ the Lord says: From the heart come forth adulteries and fornications, which defile a man.7 The Apostle Paul expresses his detestation of this crime frequently, and in the strongest terms: This is the will of God, your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication;8 Fly fornication;9 Keep not company with fornicators;10 Fornication, and all uncleanness and covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you;11 Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites shall possess the kingdom of God.12

WHY ADULTERY IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED
But the reason why adultery is expressly forbidden is because in addition to the turpitude which it shares with other kinds of incontinence, it adds the sin of injustice, not only against our neighbor, but also against civil society.
Again it is certain that he who abstains not from other sins against chastity, will easily fall into the crime of adultery. By the prohibition of adultery, therefore, we at once see that every sort of immodesty and impurity by which the body is defiled is prohibited. Nay, that every inward thought against chastity is forbidden by this Commandment is clear, as well from the very force of the law, which is evidently spiritual, as also from these words of Christ the Lord: You have heard that it was said to them of old: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.13
These are the points which we have deemed proper matter for public instruction of the faithful. The pastor, however, should add the decrees of the Council of Trent against adulterers, and those who keep harlots and concubines,14 omitting many other species of immodesty and lust, of which each individual is to be admonished privately, as circumstances of time and person may require.*

What this Commandment Prescribes
PURITY ENJOINED
We now come to explain the positive part of the precept. The faithful are to be taught and earnestly exhorted to cultivate continence and chastity with all care, to cleanse themselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God.15
First of all they should be taught that although the virtue of chastity shines with a brighter lustre in those who make the holy and religious vow of virginity, nevertheless it is a virtue which belongs also to those who lead a life of celibacy; or who, in the married state, preserve themselves pure and undefiled from unlawful desire.*
Reflections which Help one to Practice Purity
The holy Fathers have taught us many means whereby to subdue the passions and to restrain sinful pleasure. The pastor, therefore, should make it his study to explain these accurately to the faithful, and should use the utmost diligence in their exposition. Of these means some are reflections, others are active measures.

IMPURITY EXCLUDES FROM HEAVEN
The first kind consists chiefly in our forming a just conception of the filthiness and evil of this sin; for such knowledge will lead one more easily to detest it. Now the evil of this crime we may learn from the fact that, on account of it, man is banished and excluded from the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all evils.

IMPURITY IS A FILTHY SIN
The above-mentioned calamity is indeed common to every mortal sin. But what is peculiar to this sin is that fornicators are said to sin against their own bodies, according to the words of the Apostle: Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body.16 The reason is that such a one does an injury to his own body by violating its sanctity. Hence St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, says: This is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication, that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God.17
Furthermore, what is still more criminal, the Christian who shamefully sins with a harlot makes the members of Christ the members of an harlot, according to these words of St. Paul: Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot is made one body?18 Moreover, a Christian, as St. Paul testifies, is the temple of the Holy Spirit;19 and to violate this temple is nothing else than to expel the Holy Spirit.

ADULTERY IS A GRAVE INJUSTICE
But the crime of adultery involves that of grievous injustice. If, as the Apostle says, they who are joined in wedlock are so subject to each other that neither has power or right over his or her body, but both are bound, as it were, by a mutual bond of subjection, the husband to accommodate himself to the will of the wife, the wife to the will of the husband; most certainly if either dissociate his or her person, which is the right of the other, from him or her to whom it is bound, the offender is guilty of an act of great injustice and wickedness.20

ADULTERY IS DISGRACEFUL
As dread of disgrace strongly stimulates to the performance of duty and deters from the commission of crime, the pastor should also teach that adultery brands its guilty perpetrators with an unusual stigma. He that is an adulterer, says Scripture, for the folly of his heart shall destroy his own soul: he gathereth to himself shame and dishonour, and his reproach shall not be blotted out.21

IMPURITY SEVERELY PUNISHED
The grievousness of the sin of adultery may be easily inferred from the severity of its punishment. According to the law promulgated by God in the Old Testament, the adulterer was stoned to death.22 Nay more, because of the criminal passion of one man, not only the perpetrator of the crime, but a whole city was destroyed, as we read with regard to the Sichemites.23 The Sacred Scriptures abound with examples of the divine vengeance, such as the destruction of Sodom and of the neighboring cities,24 the punishment of the Israelites who committed fornication in the wilderness with the daughters of Moab,25 and the slaughter of the Benjamites.26 These examples the pastor can easily make use of to deter men from shameful lust.*

IMPURITY BLINDS THE MIND AND HARDENS THE HEART
But even though the adulterer may escape the punishment of death, he does not escape the great pains and torments that often overtake such sins as his. He becomes afflicted with blindness of mind, a most severe punishment; he is lost to all regard for God, for reputation, for honor, for family, and even for life; and thus, utterly abandoned and worthless, he is undeserving of confidence in any matter of moment, and becomes unfitted to discharge any kind of duty.
Of this we find examples in the persons of David and of Solomon. David had no sooner fallen into the crime of adultery than he degenerated into a character the very reverse of what he had been before; from the mildest of men he became so cruel as to consign to death Urias, one of his most deserving subjects.27 Solomon, having abandoned himself to the lust of women, gave up the true religion to follow strange gods.28 This sin, therefore, as Osee observes, takes away man's heart and often blinds his understanding.29

Means of Practicing Purity
AVOIDANCE OF IDLENESS
We now come to the remedies which consist in action. The first is studiously to avoid idleness; for, according to Ezechiel, it was by yielding to the enervating influence of idleness that the Sodomites plunged into the most shameful crime of criminal lust.30 *

TEMPERANCE
In the next place, intemperance is carefully to be avoided. I fed them to the full, says the Prophet, and they committed adultery.31 An overloaded stomach begets impurity. This our Lord intimates in these words: Take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness.32 Be not drunk with wine, says the Apostle, wherein is luxury.33 *

CUSTODY OF THE EYES
But the eyes, in particular, are the inlets to criminal passion, and to this refer these words of our Lord: If thine eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.34 The Prophets, also, frequently speak to the same effect. I made a covenant with mine eyes, says Job, that I would not so much as think upon a virgin.35 Finally, there are on record innumerable examples of the evils which have their origin in the indulgence of the eyes. It was thus that David sinned,36 thus that the king of Sichem fell,37 and thus also that the elders sinned who calumniated Susanna.38

AVOIDANCE OF IMMODEST DRESS
Too much display in dress, which especially attracts the eye, is but too frequently an occasion of sin. Hence the admonition of Ecclesiasticus: Turn away thy face from a woman dressed up.39
As women are given to excessive fondness for dress, it will not be unseasonable in the pastor to give some attention to the subject, and sometimes to admonish and reprove them in the impressive words of the Apostle Peter: Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel.40 St. Paul likewise says: Not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire.41 Many women adorned with gold and precious stones, have lost the only true ornament of their soul and body.*

AVOIDANCE OF IMPURE CONVERSATION, READING, PICTURES
Next to the sexual excitement, usually provoked by too studied an elegance of dress, follows another, which is indecent and obscene conversation. Obscene language is a torch which lights up the worst passions of the young mind; and the Apostle has said, that evil communications corrupt good manners.42 Immodest and passionate songs and dances are most productive of this same effect and are, therefore, cautiously to be avoided.
In the same class are to be numbered soft and obscene books which must be avoided no less than indecent pictures. All such things possess a fatal influence in exciting to unlawful attractions, and in inflaming the mind of youth. In these matters the pastor should take special pains to see that the faithful most carefully observe the pious and prudent regulations of the Council of Trent.43

FREQUENTATION OF THE SACRAMENTS
If the occasions of sin which we have just enumerated be carefully avoided, almost every excitement to lust will be removed. But the most efficacious means for subduing its violence are frequent use of confession and Communion, as also unceasing and devout prayer to God, accompanied by fasting and almsdeeds. Chastity is a gift of God.44 To those who ask it aright He does not deny it; nor does He suffer us to be tempted beyond our strength.45

MORTIFICATION
But the body is to be mortified and the sensual appetites to be repressed not only by fasting, and particularly, by the fasts instituted by the Church, but also by watching, pious pilgrimages, and other works of austerity. By these and similar observances is the virtue of temperance chiefly manifested. In connection with this subject, St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: Every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things; and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible one.46 A little after he says: I chastise my body and bring it into subjection, lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. And in another place he says: Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence.47
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Trent3.php

Why don't you ever shave down your quotes to the essential parts?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 10, 2010, 01:28:53 PM
I was rereading HV, and this struck my eye:
Why don't you ever shave down your quotes to the essential parts?
Because there is no question of me taking things out of context.
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on November 10, 2010, 01:30:02 PM
I was rereading HV, and this struck my eye:
Why don't you ever shave down your quotes to the essential parts?
Because there is no question of me taking things out of context.
But who is going to read all of that on an internet forum?
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: ialmisry on November 10, 2010, 02:19:14 PM
I was rereading HV, and this struck my eye:
Why don't you ever shave down your quotes to the essential parts?
Because there is no question of me taking things out of context.
But who is going to read all of that on an internet forum?
LOL. Evidently you:
this got a little out of hand (yeah, I know. surprise). People can dissect it as they wish, as I don't have the time right now to better chop it up...

I really pray that everyone will take the time to read your post.  It is, by far, the best exposition on these topics I've read thus far.

I also can't wait to read David's response!  This thread, I think, has been the most fascinating one I've been on in such a long time!  It feels like we're all finally being honest and following the discussion wherever it leads instead of dropping it when it just starts to get interesting!

PoM nominee!

Oh, and what isa said!
 ;)

(isa, you rock! That was a fantastic post!)

[/b]
Isa, that long post on apostolic succesion was great. See when you are not attacking "The Vatican", you really have some great information to share.  ;D
Title: Re: The Catholic Route to Birth Control
Post by: Papist on November 10, 2010, 02:25:49 PM
I was rereading HV, and this struck my eye:
Why don't you ever shave down your quotes to the essential parts?
Because there is no question of me taking things out of context.
But who is going to read all of that on an internet forum?
LOL. Evidently you:
<