OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 07:48:34 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pope: Condoms 'Increase' AIDS Epidemic in Africa  (Read 10742 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #90 on: March 21, 2009, 12:20:14 AM »

So the ends justify the means? We should be encouraging people to engage in that which is intrinsically evil (contraception) in order to avoid another evil (HIV)?

Your Pope says condoms are evil.
So do the Church fathers, as did Eastern Orthodoxy at one time.

ROFL!
You can't be serious! Which Church Fathers forbade condoms?
They condemned birth control in general.

Yes, the reason why Humanae Vitae, correct as it is, is devoid of patristics: those Fathers who condemned birth control would also condemn the rhythm method.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #91 on: March 21, 2009, 07:10:31 AM »

Yes, the reason why Humanae Vitae, correct as it is,
You're right. We ignorant, backwater Christians who call themselves the Orthodox should look more to the Vatican for answers and guidance.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 07:10:50 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
rwprof
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA now, Antiochian originally
Posts: 294



« Reply #92 on: March 21, 2009, 07:29:23 AM »

Note that the Patriarch of Moscow supports Benedict's position:

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=5818


Logged

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010.  May his memory be eternal!
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #93 on: March 21, 2009, 08:20:15 AM »

Note that the Patriarch of Moscow supports Benedict's position:

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=5818


From the story:

Quote
"It is incorrect to consider condoms as a panacea for AIDS," the deputy chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin told a round table in Moscow on Friday, commenting on the international row concerned with the pope's statement in Africa.

AIDS can be prevented not by contraceptives but by education and a righteous life, the priest said.

"If a person lives a sinful, aimless and senseless life, uses drugs and is lewd, some disease will kill him one day, neither a condom nor medicine will save him," Fr. Vsevolod added.

Insofar as the Pope is stating that condoms in themselves will not solve the AIDS crisis, that's pretty non-controversial.


Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #94 on: March 21, 2009, 10:35:51 AM »

Thank God that His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow is following the lead of The Pope on this issue.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #95 on: March 21, 2009, 12:56:42 PM »

So the ends justify the means? We should be encouraging people to engage in that which is intrinsically evil (contraception) in order to avoid another evil (HIV)?

If one must prevent HIV, then abstinence makes sense.  Nevertheless, if one must have sex, why can't we promote the use of condoms to prevent HIV?  Don't you think it's waaaaaaaaaaaaay much better than having sex unprotected?  Do we really want to act like fundamentalists who wish disease upon the abominable fornicators and homosexuals?  Not only do you prevent disease, but unwanted abortion under Papal definition.

Contrast:

“I am often asked whether there will ever be a cure for H.I.V./AIDS, and my answer is that there is already a cure,” she says. “It lies in the strength of women, families and communities who support and empower each other to break the silence around AIDS and take control of their sexual lives.”

How about giving out condemns to adulterers?  After all, in those circumstances a disease or pregnancy would be a whole host of problems.

Quote
This is the Pope who is against the death penalty, right?  Just as one may take a position of love towards murderers so that they may not be killed under law, why not offer the same love to promiscuous people, in hopes that they may repent in good health some day?
Your analogy is off: if the pope, gave the murder more human ways of doing his craft (say, poison instead of a knife) your analogy would be more in line.

Isa, if I was a health care professional, I can't just give spiritual advise to anyone I see.  The patient will tell me, "Yes, doctor, I want to have sex."  In which I case, I will answer, "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use a condom.  You have a better chance protecting yourself from unwanted pregnancies and STDs than without protection."

I think this is a very sensible approach.  If I know they have a greater risk without protection, why should I not ask otherwise.

If on the other hand Isa, I was talking to you as a friend, as a brother in Orthodoxy (or anyone who is interested in my spiritual advise), then yes, I would plead to you with spiritual advise, i.e. abstinence.

If you are going to tell them to use a condom then you should also tell them to wash up afterwards and to safely dispose of the used condom.

If you are not gonna tell them the rest then you shouldn't even tell them about the condom part.


If you are going to tell them (as a doctor) then tell them everything.





JORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #96 on: March 21, 2009, 12:58:59 PM »

I actually know a man that lived in S. Africa and has founded a AIDS relief organization. ( http://www.agathosfoundation.org/ )  One of the problems with condoms and the AIDS crisis is the climate actually. Condoms are most effective when kept in their ideal environment. They need to stay relatively cool to maintain their effectiveness (hence why keeping one in your pocket all the time is stupid). The heat and various other conditions over there often render condoms ineffective long before they would be ineffective anywhere else. If latex becomes too warm the "pores" so to speak open up allowing nearly anything to get thru. Most people that have HIV or AIDS over there don't have a nice cool place to put their condoms. Additionally most of them would have to travel a long ways to "restock" since they don't have those nice vending machines that we in the US have in bar bathrooms Roll Eyes It is quite possible that the condoms don't really even work by the time people receive them. The expiration date on condoms in Africa is in effect worthless for knowing if they are indeed effective anymore. Condoms are the finger in the dike. The CULTURE over there is what is causing this mass AIDS crisis. There is a horrible thought that if you have sex with/rape a child/infant girl that one will be "cured" of HIV or AIDS.

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/april/virgin.htm
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/444213
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/1362134/South-African-men-rape-babies-as-cure-for-Aids.html



Bingo!



If we are gonna tell people to use condoms, then we need to tell the whole story......and not just part of it. Condoms alone is not the answer.


Plus, what will they do with all the used condoms? If someone or an animal picks it up and if the person doesn't wash their hands(and if that person has cuts on their hands) then the problem will only spread.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 01:08:47 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #97 on: March 21, 2009, 01:04:04 PM »

Since the silence establishes that most everyone here does actually wear a seatbelt, it is time for my next question.  Suppose your kid said to you that they had decided they were going to be sexually active.  No matter how much you exhort him or her on how foolish that is for a variety of reasons, they are convinced in their position.  Do you wish for him / her to use a condom or not? 

You need to tell your child about everything. If the person or persons they are sleeping with have body fluids dripping......then that condom won't be of much help for the other areas of the body......especially if you have an open wound or cut anywhere.....but even if the person doesn't have HIV, they might have another STD.....in which the other parts of the body are at risk.

You need to tell your kid more than just "here, take this condom". Condoms alone is not the answer.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 01:11:08 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #98 on: March 21, 2009, 01:13:06 PM »

So the ends justify the means? We should be encouraging people to engage in that which is intrinsically evil (contraception) in order to avoid another evil (HIV)?
Logical fallacy: circular reasoning.
Logical fallacy: claiming that something is circular reasoning when it is not.

In order for something to make sense and be coherent, there will always be a level of circular reasoning somewhere.

So people should be happy about circular reasoning.........it's everywhere.




JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 01:13:51 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #99 on: March 21, 2009, 01:15:58 PM »

Condoms alone is not the answer.

No one is saying that condoms alone are the answer. What is being objected to is the false claim that 1) Condoms increase the risk of HIV transmission and 2) The dangerous and irrational idea that condoms should NOT be used if one falls into fornication.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #100 on: March 21, 2009, 01:17:23 PM »

over a decade of throwing condoms at Africans
They don't work if you just throw them at people. They actually have to put them on.



You still have to worry about body fluid. A condom won't protect your waste, thighs, and other places in that same area.


1.) Clean water

2.) Regular Soap, Anti-Bacterial Soap, & Anti-fungal Soap

3.) Bio-Hazard materials to discard used condoms in the area


And you can't forget that the most essential part in making a condom useful is HOW you take it off after sex. That is a technique that can't exactly be practiced on produce or plastic phalluses. So even with all of the above precautions it is still ineffective if you don't take it off correctly. All the studies on the effectiveness of condoms for preventing AIDS are based on CORRECT usage. But the reality is much different. For example with PERFECT use a couple using condoms will only become pregnant 2% of the time. But "typical use" actually results in pregnancy 15% of the time, now imagine how effective it is against something MUCH smaller than sperm- a virus.

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/prevention.html



My point exactly!!!!



Thankyou for posting this. I know the same to be true with plastic gloves. If you don't take them off correctly then you will contaminate yourself.

When you take off a plastic glove, you are not suppose to touch any other skin part. And you throw the glove away in a Bio-Hazard garbage bag/can.

You are also suppose to wash your hands for 30 seconds with liquid soap after.....after.....you take the gloves off.

But alot of people that use condoms, don't know how to take them off correctly, and if the other person has body fluids, then you can't take them off correctly.

And not only that, but alot of people that use condoms, either don't wash up immediately afterwards or just don't have access to where they can wash up safely. Not to mention not knowing what to do with a used condom........a used condom is a bio-hazard.









JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 01:26:08 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #101 on: March 21, 2009, 01:29:45 PM »

Condoms alone is not the answer.

No one is saying that condoms alone are the answer. What is being objected to is the false claim that 1) Condoms increase the risk of HIV transmission and 2) The dangerous and irrational idea that condoms should NOT be used if one falls into fornication.


I thought the Pope rejected the idea that "condoms alone" was not the answer.

1.) I think it can in a 3rd World country.

2.) I agree that # 2 is a dangerous and irrational idea.





JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #102 on: March 21, 2009, 01:35:15 PM »

So the ends justify the means? We should be encouraging people to engage in that which is intrinsically evil (contraception) in order to avoid another evil (HIV)?

Who says that contraception is intrinsically evil? And why, for what reason?


All sins are sins, but when you have to choose between two different sins, then you go with the lesser of two evils.


As far as contraception being evil......well, I know that a good number of church fathers and nonfathers were against it back in the day.......my memory isn't too good at the moment....as to why. Maybe someone else can answer that part.





JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #103 on: March 21, 2009, 01:40:41 PM »

If you can't be "open to life" you are supposed to be celibate in marriage as a Catholic.
Does this include the case where the primary aim is to prevent infection of the woman's partner (and baby)? Are you seriously telling me that the Catholic Church says that HIV infected married persons must remain celibate?
Yup. Its not like sex is a be all end all in life.

True





JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #104 on: March 21, 2009, 01:45:10 PM »

Quote
"The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position,  and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father." - Met. Ware, The Orthodox Church.

The Catholic church seems to ONLY care about the procreative aspect of sex and forget completely about the unitive nature. They see it as both/and rather than seeing them as the separate issues altogether which they are. Sex or lack thereof is an issue that can and often does make or break a marriage. And we are not to withold from each other unless we are in agreement. This will often lead to many catholic men becoming porn and masturbation issues because they can't have sex with their wife due to health issues.

The worst case of this thought process I saw was when a woman that wanted to wed a man with a vasectomy was told she can't because it would never be a marriage "open to life." And I saw a case where a man was told he couldn't wed a woman that had a tubal ligation as well. They would have been second marriages but these people had the procedures before they converted. To declare that a marriage is invalid simply because there is no chance of "creating life" is horrendous to my mind.

The Primary function of sex is procreation. Anything else is just a bonus/reward for helping bring new life into the World.

The primary function is the primary function and it shouldn't be overlooked nor ignored for the sake of personal pleasure. That personal pleasure is there for a reason.

To ignore it's primary function is to make sex nothing more than a natural drug........where people get their personal fixes.

And it makes the addiction of the personal fix.....the primary reason.....when it isn't......it is secondary.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 01:49:18 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #105 on: March 21, 2009, 01:49:19 PM »

Can't agree with you jnorm. Being in my current situation I can and will say that the primary function of sex is NOT procreative.

1) I am pregnant. So to have sex right now would NOT be procreative, that is just redundant.
2) My husband is gone/will be gone for a loooonnngggg time.

Does this mean that neither my husband or I have a need for sex? No, we both do and if we were together we would have it. Sex fulfills both emotional and physical needs/desires.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 01:51:47 PM by Quinault » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #106 on: March 21, 2009, 01:54:22 PM »

Can't agree with you jnorm. Being in my current situation I can and will say that the primary function of sex is NOT procreative.

1) I am pregnant. So to have sex right now would NOT be procreative, that is just redundant.
2) My husband is gone/will be gone for a loooonnngggg time.

Does this mean that neither my husband or I have a need for sex? No, we both do and if we were together we would have it.

The primary reason for sex is procreation......anything else is secondary. Now I'm not saying you can't have sex.....I'm just saying that it's secondary.

If procreation wasn't the primary means for this function then we would have other natural ways to have babies.

Anything else is a secondary reason or subordinate reason to have sex. Now I'm not saying your wrong in wanting to have sex, instead, I'm just saying that such a thing is a secondary reason(of why we have these sex organs).......or else there would be no need to invent contraceptives to stop the baby from being formed.

This alone should tell us what the primary function is.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 01:59:24 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #107 on: March 21, 2009, 02:01:05 PM »

I would equate the sex drive outside marriage to a fix, a drug. You are driven by hormonal desire and desire a fix. But within marriage it is more than outside marriage.

If we aren't supposed to withhold sex from each other except if we both agree like Scripture says, then that means sex is more than procreation. Not to mention if you go the primary procreative route then sex when people are older and past childbearing years is wrong since it can't be procreative. What about women that have had to have a hysterectomy? Then there is no chance of conception! Do you doom these women to remaining single for the rest of their lives? Women can be born without uterus's or ovaries, should they be banned from marriage too? This type of logic looks good on the surface but when you scratch a bit deeper it is merely turning women into baby factories. And if you can't make babies you are worthless. Then it measures the worth of men and women by their fertility. My brother in law has fertility issues and can't conceive a child with his wife. But this inability to impregnate his wife makes him no less of a husband or man. But if you use the logic that sex is primarily for procreation then he shouldn't wed if he knows he can't produce a child.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 02:10:07 PM by Quinault » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #108 on: March 21, 2009, 02:11:48 PM »

I would equate the sex drive outside marriage to a fix, a drug. You are driven by hormonal desire and desire a fix. But within marriage it is more than outside marriage.

If we aren't supposed to withhold sex from each other except if we both agree like Scripture says, then that means sex is more than procreation. Not to mention if you go the primary procreative route then sex when people are older and past childbearing years is wrong since it can't be procreative. What about women that have had to have a hysterectomy? Then there is no chance of conception! Do you doom these women to remaining single for the rest of their lives? Women can be born without uterus's or ovaries, should they be banned from marriage too? This type of logic looks good on the surface but when you scratch a bit deeper it is merely turning women into baby factories. And if you can't make babies you are worthless. Then it measures the worth of men and women to their fertility. My brother in law has fertility issues and can't conceive a child with his wife. But this inability to impregnate his wife makes him no less of a husband or man. But if you use the logic that sex is primarily for procreation then he shouldn't wed if he knows he can't produce a child.



So you're saying that the Primary reason for sex within marriage is twofold.

1.) Procreation & marital sex



Interesting, you may have a point. I will have to ponder this.

Thanks for posting.


You know that this will bring up a whole other can of warms.........it is easier and safer (for civil reasons) to just let those who are able to procreate get married.   But I will think about what you said.....for you do raise alot of good points.










JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 02:16:43 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #109 on: March 21, 2009, 02:13:11 PM »

I would equate the sex drive outside marriage to a fix, a drug. You are driven by hormonal desire and desire a fix. But within marriage it is more than outside marriage.

If we aren't supposed to withhold sex from each other except if we both agree like Scripture says, then that means sex is more than procreation. Not to mention if you go the primary procreative route then sex when people are older and past childbearing years is wrong since it can't be procreative. What about women that have had to have a hysterectomy? Then there is no chance of conception! Do you doom these women to remaining single for the rest of their lives? Women can be born without uterus's or ovaries, should they be banned from marriage too? This type of logic looks good on the surface but when you scratch a bit deeper it is merely turning women into baby factories. And if you can't make babies you are worthless. Then it measures the worth of men and women by their fertility. My brother in law has fertility issues and can't conceive a child with his wife. But this inability to impregnate his wife makes him no less of a husband or man. But if you use the logic that sex is primarily for procreation then he shouldn't wed if he knows he can't produce a child.

Agreed.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #110 on: March 21, 2009, 02:14:45 PM »

I would equate the sex drive outside marriage to a fix, a drug. You are driven by hormonal desire and desire a fix. But within marriage it is more than outside marriage.

If we aren't supposed to withhold sex from each other except if we both agree like Scripture says, then that means sex is more than procreation. Not to mention if you go the primary procreative route then sex when people are older and past childbearing years is wrong since it can't be procreative. What about women that have had to have a hysterectomy? Then there is no chance of conception! Do you doom these women to remaining single for the rest of their lives? Women can be born without uterus's or ovaries, should they be banned from marriage too? This type of logic looks good on the surface but when you scratch a bit deeper it is merely turning women into baby factories. And if you can't make babies you are worthless. Then it measures the worth of men and women to their fertility. My brother in law has fertility issues and can't conceive a child with his wife. But this inability to impregnate his wife makes him no less of a husband or man. But if you use the logic that sex is primarily for procreation then he shouldn't wed if he knows he can't produce a child.



So you're saying that the Primary reason for sex within marriage is twofold.

1.) Procreation & marital sex



Interesting, you may have a point. I will have to ponder this.

Thanks for posting.










JNORM888

If I'm remembering correctly, this is the view espoused by Fr. Meyendorff in his book on Orthodox marriage. Both parts- procreation and physical union, hold the same weight of importance.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #111 on: March 21, 2009, 02:16:17 PM »

"The goal of sex in marriage is spiritual union. Through the joining of two physical bodies in marital love comes a unique oneness of soul. Saint John Chrysostom instructs us: 'Their intercourse accomplishes the joining of their bodies, and they are made one, just as when perfume is mixed with ointment" (12th Homily on Colossians)

From: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sex
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #112 on: March 21, 2009, 02:17:51 PM »

So the ends justify the means? We should be encouraging people to engage in that which is intrinsically evil (contraception) in order to avoid another evil (HIV)?

Who says that contraception is intrinsically evil? And why, for what reason?


All sins are sins, but when you have to choose between two different sins, then you go with the lesser of two evils.


As far as contraception being evil......well, I know that a good number of church fathers and nonfathers were against it back in the day.......my memory isn't too good at the moment....as to why. Maybe someone else can answer that part.





JNORM888

Yes, some of them definitely were against anything beyond procreation in marriage. Moreover, some of them, like St. John Chrysostom, wrote that Adam and Eve had no sex whatsoever untill they fell into sin, because it's just unconceivable that such a horrible, dirty, filthy thing as copulation could be a part of life of sinless humans. When God told them to be fruitful and multiply, He most definitely meant something else, not this horrible, atrocious, abominable "stuff."

I consider such writings a pure undiluted idiocy. Sorry Fathers. With all due respect for other things that you wrote...
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 02:18:22 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #113 on: March 21, 2009, 02:18:33 PM »

I would equate the sex drive outside marriage to a fix, a drug. You are driven by hormonal desire and desire a fix. But within marriage it is more than outside marriage.

If we aren't supposed to withhold sex from each other except if we both agree like Scripture says, then that means sex is more than procreation. Not to mention if you go the primary procreative route then sex when people are older and past childbearing years is wrong since it can't be procreative. What about women that have had to have a hysterectomy? Then there is no chance of conception! Do you doom these women to remaining single for the rest of their lives? Women can be born without uterus's or ovaries, should they be banned from marriage too? This type of logic looks good on the surface but when you scratch a bit deeper it is merely turning women into baby factories. And if you can't make babies you are worthless. Then it measures the worth of men and women to their fertility. My brother in law has fertility issues and can't conceive a child with his wife. But this inability to impregnate his wife makes him no less of a husband or man. But if you use the logic that sex is primarily for procreation then he shouldn't wed if he knows he can't produce a child.



So you're saying that the Primary reason for sex within marriage is twofold.

1.) Procreation & marital sex



Interesting, you may have a point. I will have to ponder this.

Thanks for posting.










JNORM888

If I'm remembering correctly, this is the view espoused by Fr. Meyendorff in his book on Orthodox marriage. Both parts- procreation and physical union, hold the same weight of importance.

Interesting, I will put it on my books to get list.



thanks for sharing



JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #114 on: March 21, 2009, 02:21:37 PM »

I have heard plenty of Catholics get around the idea of older sex past childbearing years being "open to life" by saying-"Well it is still open to life because you aren't doing anything to prevent pregnancy and would take a child if you were given one."

But we aren't in biblical times. And I guarantee that my grandma at 80 or my mom at 63 would be shocked, appalled and terrified if they became pregnant again  laugh Being "open to life" is the farthest thing from their minds at that age.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 02:30:01 PM by Quinault » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #115 on: March 21, 2009, 02:22:46 PM »

So the ends justify the means? We should be encouraging people to engage in that which is intrinsically evil (contraception) in order to avoid another evil (HIV)?

Who says that contraception is intrinsically evil? And why, for what reason?


All sins are sins, but when you have to choose between two different sins, then you go with the lesser of two evils.


As far as contraception being evil......well, I know that a good number of church fathers and nonfathers were against it back in the day.......my memory isn't too good at the moment....as to why. Maybe someone else can answer that part.





JNORM888

Yes, some of them definitely were against anything beyond procreation in marriage. Moreover, some of them, like St. John Chrysostom, wrote that Adam and Eve had no sex whatsoever untill they fell into sin, because it's just unconceivable that such a horrible, dirty, filthy thing as copulation could be a part of life of sinless humans. When God told them to be fruitful and multiply, He most definitely meant something else, not this horrible, atrocious, abominable "stuff."

I consider such writings a pure undiluted idiocy. Sorry Fathers. With all due respect for other things that you wrote...

I thought Saint John Chrysostom made a good observation. But to each his own.

I thought it had more to do with the idea that if you had sex before the fall then you would also have kids before the fall. I don't think you can put Saint John Chrysostom in the same boat with Saint Augustine. I could be wrong, but I think the Eastern Fathers had a different view about sex than Augustine.


But to each his own.




JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #116 on: March 21, 2009, 02:25:09 PM »

God opens and closes the womb as he chooses. There is certainly plenty of evidence for that in scripture. I don't think we can assume that there was no sex before the fall. I think many people think of the fall and their nakedness being exposed and correlate nakedness with the fall and then the sex occurred later because they were naked. But the issue is more complex than that and you have to delve deeper.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 02:26:17 PM by Quinault » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #117 on: March 21, 2009, 02:25:30 PM »

"The goal of sex in marriage is spiritual union. Through the joining of two physical bodies in marital love comes a unique oneness of soul. Saint John Chrysostom instructs us: 'Their intercourse accomplishes the joining of their bodies, and they are made one, just as when perfume is mixed with ointment" (12th Homily on Colossians)

From: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sex


Interesting. It looks like I have to change my mind about this. But don't expect it to change overnight.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 02:25:51 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #118 on: March 21, 2009, 02:28:28 PM »

There is also the fact that there is specific mention of pain in childbirth being increased for women. Who knows how we would have reproduced and given birth before the fall? Pushing a baby out certainly isn't painless! Cheesy
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 02:28:52 PM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #119 on: March 21, 2009, 02:43:47 PM »


You know that this will bring up a whole other can of warms.........it is easier and safer (for civil reasons) to just let those who are able to procreate get married.   But I will think about what you said.....for you do raise alot of good points.

JNORM888

Why would it be "easier and safer" to only allow those that can procreate to wed? This would only increase fornication, the sex drive is not driven by fertility alone.  (Especially for men, women will often have an increase is sexual desire in relation to ovulation, but that isn't the only time women desire sex. And sex for women is more than just a physical desire so the desire of sex is more of an emotional one for women than men.)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 02:47:18 PM by Quinault » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,659


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #120 on: March 21, 2009, 03:02:44 PM »

So the ends justify the means? We should be encouraging people to engage in that which is intrinsically evil (contraception) in order to avoid another evil (HIV)?
And the same Roman church that calls artificial birth control intrinsically evil also calls fornication and adultery intrinsically evil.  Why focus your polemic on just one side of the problem?  Ideally, according to your church's reasoning, a man and a woman should have sex with each other only if they are married to each other, and they would do so without using contraceptives.  If unmarried men, women, boys, and girls heeded your church's call to abstain from sex before or outside of the marriage bed, then you wouldn't also need to tell them to not use contraceptives, since it would just be a non-issue.  However, we're fallen and weak.  As such, a good number of our unmarried folk are going to engage in sexual activity--as much as we preach against it, they're going to do it anyway, for they just don't have the strength apart from the grace of God to resist one of the strongest of natural urges.  Why not at least support some modicum of protection, even if it is sinful, as a pastoral concession to the fact that they are sinning anyway, so that they can at least live long enough to repent?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 03:03:50 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
rwprof
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA now, Antiochian originally
Posts: 294



« Reply #121 on: March 21, 2009, 03:24:59 PM »

Insofar as the Pope is stating that condoms in themselves will not solve the AIDS crisis, that's pretty non-controversial.

As non-controversial as what Benedict actually said, but when you rely on the Christian-hating media for your information, well, this thread is what happens.


Logged

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010.  May his memory be eternal!
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #122 on: March 21, 2009, 04:25:47 PM »


You know that this will bring up a whole other can of warms.........it is easier and safer (for civil reasons) to just let those who are able to procreate get married.   But I will think about what you said.....for you do raise alot of good points.

JNORM888

Why would it be "easier and safer" to only allow those that can procreate to wed? This would only increase fornication, the sex drive is not driven by fertility alone.  (Especially for men, women will often have an increase is sexual desire in relation to ovulation, but that isn't the only time women desire sex. And sex for women is more than just a physical desire so the desire of sex is more of an emotional one for women than men.)

The Church does, in fact, admit that sex is a legitimate part of marriage, even if fertility is out of question. If I am not mistaken, Ialmisry (or was it Sol?) even found Canons stating that while infertility is not a legitimate grounds for divorce, impotence is. Yet, there is this constant theme pretty much everywhere in the patristic heritage that to not have sex is better than to have it; that's why during fasts, married people should abstain from sex (makes you closer to God, etc.), monks are the only people eligible for episcopate, etc. etc. etc. So, sex is a "concession" - yes, if you are married, you should have it with your spouse, rather than lust for a prostitute; but usually there are all kinds of negative things associated with it, almost never anything positive, let alone calling it a sacred thing. I am afraid that it is nothing else but  this age-old fear of sex for pleasure (or, as I call it, sorry, idiocy) that resulted in Catholic ideas about "the absolute necessity of openness for conception" as detailed in the "Humanae Vitae."
Logged

Love never fails.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,126


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #123 on: March 21, 2009, 04:36:54 PM »

If you are going to tell them to use a condom then you should also tell them to wash up afterwards and to safely dispose of the used condom.

Ya, oh God...wo is me!!! Thank you for reminding me... Roll Eyes

THE POINT IS: so you agree with me that if someone is going to have sex, they should use a condom?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 04:38:02 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #124 on: March 22, 2009, 01:52:18 PM »

‘We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”

So notes Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, in response to papal press comments en route to Africa this week.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNlNDc1MmMwNDM0OTEzMjQ4NDc0ZGUyOWYxNmEzN2E%3D
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,126


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #125 on: March 22, 2009, 03:49:40 PM »

‘We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”

So notes Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, in response to papal press comments en route to Africa this week.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNlNDc1MmMwNDM0OTEzMjQ4NDc0ZGUyOWYxNmEzN2E%3D

Searching for Edward Green's research, I found it to be quite enlightening:

http://www.harvardaidsprp.org/research/green-manhattan-institute-lecture-010908.pdf

In it he makes an interesting statement that Ms. Lopez here seems to ignore, i.e. what may be working in NY and Bangkok does not necessarily mean it will work in Africa.  In addition, we know that when educating teens in schools on sex education, they are taught the ABC's of sex (abstinence, be faithful, circumcision/condom).  Green's "A" is a bit different:  he includes being faithful in A, while B is reducing risk through restricting relationships (perhaps polygamous).  Apparently, the funding of AID's prevention in Africa has been only "C's."  That is unfortunate and very suspiciously malicious.  The culture in Africa is also different, where one tends to have two life-long sexual relationships, whereas in the US, serial monogamy is popular.  Thus, "A" is already a cardinal rule in the US, but not so in Africa (not to be confused with Bush's "A" program of abstinence only).

This doesn't mean condoms aren't effective.  It's the last resort.  But behavior is just as important.  He does not discourage use of condoms as the Pope is.  He's simply stating Africa should have a different approach as successfully has been in Uganda.  There are ads for polygamists as well to be faithful.  There are ads that teach people to stay only with their wives.  In the past, ads were only for encouraging sex and condom use, which is where Green becomes frustrated.

In conclusion, the Pope agrees with Green's main point in discouraging the use of multiple partners, which is apparently very popular in Africa.  However, he does not take off condoms from the list like the Pope.  In fact, here is what he thinks is an example of progress:

Quote
• Reduce the number of multiple and concurrent multiple and concurrent partnerships.
• Prepare for the possible roll out of male circumcision.
• Address male involvement and responsibility for sexual and reproductive health, & HIV prevention and support.
Increase consistent and correct condom use.
• Continue programming around delayed sexual debut.

In addition to the main issue, which was multiple parternships, there was still inadequate/incorrect condom use due to no education and unavailability in rural areas, which is considered to add to the problem.  So, yes, I think we can all agree condom use should not be the main solution, but when you have stubbornness, condoms are actually encouraged by Green.

So who is Kathryn Jean Lopez?  A Catholic, Bush supporting Conservative (not that there's anything wrong with that).  I'm suspicious she just picked and chose things to write without giving us the full story due to her own agenda.  I won't be surprised if Green will come back to clarify his views from Lopez's one-sided article.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 03:57:55 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #126 on: March 22, 2009, 04:05:09 PM »

Condoms are like Russian roulette. They don't work 100% of the time. And it only takes one time for the infection to take place.

----------

Sex DOES have a holy unitive aspect to it when shared in the marriage bed---but the primary aspect is PROCREATIVE and should not be actively and artificially impeded. That's God's territory.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #127 on: March 23, 2009, 12:57:03 PM »

Sex DOES have a holy unitive aspect to it when shared in the marriage bed---but the primary aspect is PROCREATIVE and should not be actively and artificially impeded. That's God's territory.
I'm sorry, but we are just not going to agree with you, or the Pope, on this issue. There are many aspects to sex, and procreation is merely one of them. Then again, the Catholic church did always have a tough time with the idea of "first among equals." Wink
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #128 on: March 23, 2009, 02:48:25 PM »

Sex DOES have a holy unitive aspect to it when shared in the marriage bed---but the primary aspect is PROCREATIVE and should not be actively and artificially impeded. That's God's territory.

Yes, I hear this from Catholics all the time. But to me, it sounds weird and cruel. It is NOT God's territory, it is the territory of God AND the particular married couple. It is up to THEM, to conceive or not. I just don't see how it can be otherwise.
Logged

Love never fails.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #129 on: March 23, 2009, 05:53:43 PM »

Condoms are like Russian roulette. They don't work 100% of the time. And it only takes one time for the infection to take place.

----------

Sex DOES have a holy unitive aspect to it when shared in the marriage bed---but the primary aspect is PROCREATIVE and should not be actively and artificially impeded. That's God's territory.

What is the Vatican's stance on whether priests ought to wear condoms while raping altar boys?  Would that take away from the procreative aspect of sex? 
 You could have made your point quite well without being so insulting to our Catholic guests as to bring up this scandal, which is still a sore point for many Catholics, in such a crass way.

-PeterTheAleut (modified after discussion with ozgeorge)
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 12:06:41 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,126


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #130 on: March 23, 2009, 07:19:43 PM »

Condoms are like Russian roulette. They don't work 100% of the time. And it only takes one time for the infection to take place.

----------

Sex DOES have a holy unitive aspect to it when shared in the marriage bed---but the primary aspect is PROCREATIVE and should not be actively and artificially impeded. That's God's territory.

What is the Vatican's stance on whether priests ought to wear condoms while raping altar boys?  Would that take away from the procreative aspect of sex? 

Come on man, that was uncalled for.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #131 on: March 23, 2009, 07:24:36 PM »

Condoms are like Russian roulette. They don't work 100% of the time. And it only takes one time for the infection to take place.

----------

Sex DOES have a holy unitive aspect to it when shared in the marriage bed---but the primary aspect is PROCREATIVE and should not be actively and artificially impeded. That's God's territory.

What is the Vatican's stance on whether priests ought to wear condoms while raping altar boys?  Would that take away from the procreative aspect of sex? 

Come on man, that was uncalled for.

Not at all.  If Catholics are saying that condoms ought not to be used because imposing Catholic morality on a large swathe of the population (many of whom aren't Catholics) is more effective at preventing STIs, then it should be logical that the Roman Catholic clergy would be pillars of this morality.  If, one the other hand, the shocking reality is that people can and do make mistakes, and that in such cases, it would be better to at least use a condom than have absolutely no protection at all. 
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #132 on: March 23, 2009, 08:40:31 PM »

Sex DOES have a holy unitive aspect to it when shared in the marriage bed---but the primary aspect is PROCREATIVE and should not be actively and artificially impeded. That's God's territory.
I'm sorry, but we are just not going to agree with you, or the Pope, on this issue. There are many aspects to sex, and procreation is merely one of them. Then again, the Catholic church did always have a tough time with the idea of "first among equals." Wink

Don't blame us, blame the Fathers.

This capitulation among almost every Christian communion beginning in the middle of the 20th century is striking, to say the least.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,659


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #133 on: March 23, 2009, 08:42:27 PM »

Sex DOES have a holy unitive aspect to it when shared in the marriage bed---but the primary aspect is PROCREATIVE and should not be actively and artificially impeded. That's God's territory.
I'm sorry, but we are just not going to agree with you, or the Pope, on this issue. There are many aspects to sex, and procreation is merely one of them. Then again, the Catholic church did always have a tough time with the idea of "first among equals." Wink

Don't blame us, blame the Fathers.

This capitulation among almost every Christian communion beginning in the middle of the 20th century is striking, to say the least.
Should it be so striking that we at least recognize the need for pastoral sensitivity to real life situations and don't just believe in enforcing the strict letter of the law as this has been laid down from the ivory tower of the Vatican?
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #134 on: March 24, 2009, 12:06:02 PM »

Sex DOES have a holy unitive aspect to it when shared in the marriage bed---but the primary aspect is PROCREATIVE and should not be actively and artificially impeded. That's God's territory.
I'm sorry, but we are just not going to agree with you, or the Pope, on this issue. There are many aspects to sex, and procreation is merely one of them. Then again, the Catholic church did always have a tough time with the idea of "first among equals." Wink

Don't blame us, blame the Fathers.

This capitulation among almost every Christian communion beginning in the middle of the 20th century is striking, to say the least.
Should it be so striking that we at least recognize the need for pastoral sensitivity to real life situations and don't just believe in enforcing the strict letter of the law as this has been laid down from the ivory tower of the Vatican?
Precisely. It is not capitulation to have mercy on certain individuals, depending on their particular needs and situations. On the contrary, it is Christian. Remember the woman who committed adultery? The law demanded that she be put to death. Christ refused to follow the letter of the law, but instead showed her mercy and allowed her to repent and turn from her ways. Did Christ in so doing claim that adultery is not immoral? By no means! Yet he also showed that strictly enforcing the letter of the law is not always the best way to govern the Church.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Tags: AIDS Africa birth control contraception marriage 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.178 seconds with 72 queries.