OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 01:14:59 PM *
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 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Contraception & Natural Law  (Read 41449 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #135 on: May 22, 2009, 10:59:41 PM »


Dear Pilgrim (and others),

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

WHO CARES?

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

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

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

I don't know - are they? All of their "teachings," i.e. every sound they uttered?
Logged

Love never fails.
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #136 on: May 22, 2009, 11:52:32 PM »


Dear Pilgrim (and others),

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

WHO CARES?

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

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

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

I don't know - are they? All of their "teachings," i.e. every sound they uttered?
According to Apostolic Tradition? Yes
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 11:55:18 PM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #137 on: May 22, 2009, 11:54:25 PM »

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

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

Dr. Engelhardt teaches at Rice University.
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #138 on: May 22, 2009, 11:57:41 PM »

I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?

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

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



WWW
« Reply #139 on: May 23, 2009, 08:11:48 AM »


Dear Pilgrim (and others),

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

WHO CARES?

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

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

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

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

Please explain this? What do you mean by saying that every sound every Father uttered or every letter every Father wrote on every occasion and on any topic is "immutable" according to "Apostolic Tradition" (which is...? define...?)
Logged

Love never fails.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #140 on: May 23, 2009, 08:16:18 AM »

I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?

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

I think I agree with this, plus also that the "Dogma" is, again, not a set of laws or rules, but the Logos Incarnate, Jesus Christ, God Man, and His own teaching of who He is and how He is to be worshipped and glorified "correctly" ("ortho doxon"). The only Orthodox answer to Pontius Pilate's question, "What is truth?" (the central moment of all Scripture) is that the truth is not "what," but Who.
Logged

Love never fails.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #141 on: May 23, 2009, 10:16:09 AM »


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

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

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #142 on: May 23, 2009, 10:27:01 AM »


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

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

Thank you, Ebor. That was not meant to be a "counterpoint" to your point.
Logged

Love never fails.
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #143 on: May 23, 2009, 03:24:02 PM »

To me it's as plain as simple Jane.... if the early Chruch Doctors spoke unanimously againt all forms of birth control, then we should take heed. You can't research their writings without stumbling over their stern objections to this.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 03:24:33 PM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #144 on: May 23, 2009, 03:29:22 PM »

To me it's as plain as simple Jane.... if the early Chruch Doctors spoke unanimously againt all forms of birth control, then we should take heed. You can't research their writings without stumbling over their stern objections to this.

Did they also unanimously believe that the Sun orbits the Earth?
« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 03:29:38 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #145 on: May 23, 2009, 03:34:28 PM »

The reason, Heorhij, that I want to know what the Fathers said is that they are witnesses to the faih of the Holy church. I would probably have disagreements with them on science, but that's really not the point. The Fathers have witnessed the very earliest days of the church, and so I will not join a Church that has changed their teaching. That's why I eliminated Protestantism as a possibility. I of course will not accept everythin just because a Father said it (I would not accept the teachings of, say, Arius) but I will see what the consensus of the Holy Church was on matters of faith, morals, and discpline. How else will I find the One, Holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church? Orthodox means, after all, right teaching. And this is the Teaching of the Church which the Fathers attest to.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 03:34:45 PM by Pilgrim » Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #146 on: May 23, 2009, 03:38:48 PM »

I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?

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

I think I agree with this, plus also that the "Dogma" is, again, not a set of laws or rules, but the Logos Incarnate, Jesus Christ, God Man, and His own teaching of who He is and how He is to be worshipped and glorified "correctly" ("ortho doxon"). The only Orthodox answer to Pontius Pilate's question, "What is truth?" (the central moment of all Scripture) is that the truth is not "what," but Who.
This is the definiton for "Dogma" I got from Miriam-Webster Online:
 Main Entry:dog·ma
Pronunciation:\ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s):plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta  \-mə-tə\
Etymology:Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent
Date:1638
1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 03:39:18 PM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #147 on: May 23, 2009, 04:58:11 PM »

I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?

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

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

We're using theological terms in a nuanced manner.  Webster may not be as helpful here.
Logged
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #148 on: May 23, 2009, 04:59:34 PM »

The reason, Heorhij, that I want to know what the Fathers said is that they are witnesses to the faih of the Holy church. I would probably have disagreements with them on science, but that's really not the point.

What if a previous pastoral policy or teaching is informed by bad science?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #149 on: May 23, 2009, 05:43:53 PM »

The reason, Heorhij, that I want to know what the Fathers said is that they are witnesses to the faih of the Holy church.

In the question of the Sun orbiting the Earth?

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

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

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

I eliminated Protestantism because it is pedestrian, not beautiful, and because Protestants, not having bishops, constantly engage in meaningless, destructive fighting about who would be their best minister and "what do I get from the church." (Unfortunately, I heard this same thing here from American Orthodox converts...) But in the questions (or, rather, "questions" in quotation marks) of whether a man can wear a condom when he and his wife do not want to have their next child right now - I think Protestants are right, and we are ridiculous.
Logged

Love never fails.
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #150 on: May 23, 2009, 06:07:45 PM »

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

Heorhij,

Three facts:

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

Absolutely everything that explicitly states or implicitly assumes otherwise needs to be changed accordingly.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #151 on: May 23, 2009, 06:23:37 PM »

I am sorry if I went over the edge. The issue of contraception is very personal to me because on another (Ukrainian) forum, I was foolishly sincere to admit that my wife and I, after having our daughter, used some non-"natural" contraceptive methods in the past. After that I was bombarded with hundreds of quotes from good ol' Fathers and called a sneaky sleazy devil-hypocrite, a cheap servant of Antichrist and what not. My attempt to defend myself saying that after our daughter was born, my wife had three miscarriages that almost killed her, and that we finally decided to not risk her health and life and also to drag ourselves out of poverty and dependence and make our careers - was met with further jeer and throwing of feces.

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

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

Love never fails.
Cudgel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 172


« Reply #152 on: May 23, 2009, 06:27:56 PM »

I am sorry if I went over the edge. The issue of contraception is very personal to me because on another (Ukrainian) forum, I was foolishly sincere to admit that my wife and I, after having our daughter, used some non-"natural" contraceptive methods in the past. After that I was bombarded with hundreds of quotes from good ol' Fathers and called a sneaky sleazy devil-hypocrite, a cheap servant of Antichrist and what not. My attempt to defend myself saying that after our daughter was born, my wife had three miscarriages that almost killed her, and that we finally decided to not risk her health and life and also to drag ourselves out of poverty and dependence and make our careers - was met with further jeer and throwing of feces.

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

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


Thanks for sharing your story, Heorhij, this is why I fight: to prevent this from happening.  They deserve better.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 06:28:18 PM by Cudgel » Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #153 on: May 23, 2009, 06:46:18 PM »

I am sorry if I went over the edge. The issue of contraception is very personal to me because on another (Ukrainian) forum, I was foolishly sincere to admit that my wife and I, after having our daughter, used some non-"natural" contraceptive methods in the past. After that I was bombarded with hundreds of quotes from good ol' Fathers and called a sneaky sleazy devil-hypocrite, a cheap servant of Antichrist and what not. My attempt to defend myself saying that after our daughter was born, my wife had three miscarriages that almost killed her, and that we finally decided to not risk her health and life and also to drag ourselves out of poverty and dependence and make our careers - was met with further jeer and throwing of feces.

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

Over and out, no more posts from me in this thread and no more reading by me of this thread.s is a per
I know this is a very touchy subject. Don't mean to get personal with anyone, I just thought we were all sharing opinions. In the end it is a spiritual decision made between oneself and his/her spiritual advisor/father.
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #154 on: May 23, 2009, 07:58:49 PM »

People, forgive me for calling Protestantism "not beautiful," - I certainly did not mean something like this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR8gc7WFiCc

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

Sorry for breaking my promise not to read this thread any more - I just wanted to apologize for calling Protestantism "not beautiful" because that's what I really find Protestantism in the USA, perhaps because of my personal very European background, and I just wanted to remind all of us, and myself, of Bach.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 07:59:29 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #155 on: May 23, 2009, 08:14:03 PM »

I remember a conversation I once happened to overhear between a pastor in my former church and a group of men he was counselling from another (somewhat similar) group. This group of men were totally convinced of the merits of patriarchy and that their wives were absolutely supposed to be bearing children every single year as long as they were able. Now, my former church also placed enormous emphasis on having many children etc., but this pastor told these men that they were very wrong to put such a terrible strain on their wives' bodies. He told them the NT (Peter) says that women are the "weaker vessel" and that a man who truly loves his wife as himself will not selfishly wear her out by placing  her delicate body through years of difficult childbearing. He said more, but I can't remember everything. I was very impressed with this compassionate approach.
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #156 on: May 23, 2009, 09:21:50 PM »

.... He told them the NT (Peter) says that women are the "weaker vessel" and that a man who truly loves his wife as himself will not selfishly wear her out by placing  her delicate body through years of difficult childbearing. He said more, but I can't remember everything. I was very impressed with this compassionate approach.

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

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

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

Where is the compassion in both cases?
Logged
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #157 on: May 23, 2009, 09:59:56 PM »

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

Also, if it is the mother's choice to have many children, and if her body holds up well, then I can't see why she shouldn't have as many as she can-as long as the family has the means to properly provide for them etc. I think it's kind of selfish to have children if you aren't actually married.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 10:03:22 PM by Rosehip » Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #158 on: May 23, 2009, 10:55:36 PM »

Good question. I for one do not closely follow such stories. Did either of the two women take fertility drugs? I was under the impression that it is a known fact that doing so often results in multiple births.

Both women used fertility drugs.

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

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

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

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

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

Both women made the decisions to have multiple children and have to deal with the consequences, whether good or bad.
Logged
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #159 on: May 24, 2009, 01:12:54 AM »

I know this is a very touchy subject. Don't mean to get personal with anyone, I just thought we were all sharing opinions. In the end it is a spiritual decision made between oneself and his/her spiritual advisor/father.
[/quote]

Of course its touchy. That shows that it is an issue which cannot be ignored. I hate wasting time, and wouldn't even have started this thread if I didn't think it important.
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #160 on: May 24, 2009, 01:34:22 AM »


Of course its touchy. That shows that it is an issue which cannot be ignored. I hate wasting time, and wouldn't even have started this thread if I didn't think it important.
Well then, my good man, don't let me get in the way Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: May 24, 2009, 01:36:03 AM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,845



« Reply #161 on: December 06, 2010, 01:48:11 AM »

To me it's as plain as simple Jane.... if the early Chruch Doctors spoke unanimously againt all forms of birth control, then we should take heed. You can't research their writings without stumbling over their stern objections to this.
THe early Church 'Doctors', e.g. Clement, Augustine, Jerome et alia did not speak unanimously against all forms of birth control.  They spoke out against what the Vatican now calls "Natural Family Planning."
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #162 on: December 06, 2010, 02:01:06 AM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

West: Bishop St. Caesarius of Arles says in 522 [Sermon 1:12],
Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in Hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman.
http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/03/contraception.html
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,845



« Reply #163 on: December 06, 2010, 02:11:14 AM »

I believe the EP praised Humanae Vitae when it was first promulgated.


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

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

~Patriarch Athenagoras' telegramme to Pope Paul VI, 9 August 1968, reprinted in Towards the Healing of Schism, ed. & trans. E.J. Stormon ,1987.
Wasn't that the same EP who lifted the anathema against those who teach the Filioque?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,845



« Reply #164 on: December 06, 2010, 02:30:05 AM »

Dear brother Quinault,

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #165 on: December 06, 2010, 02:40:17 AM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

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

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

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

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


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

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

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 02:43:25 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,845



« Reply #166 on: December 06, 2010, 02:41:19 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
That is why according to the Catholic teaching, even the use of NFP as contraception is sinful (which requires the healing balm of the Sacrament of Reconciliation).
but the Vatican does not.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,845



« Reply #167 on: December 06, 2010, 02:43:00 AM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

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

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

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

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


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

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

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibtion all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
and require it during her fertile period.  After all, marriage according to St. Jerome, is just for breeding, preferably of monks and nuns.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,845



« Reply #168 on: December 06, 2010, 02:45:44 AM »

Dear Gabriel,

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

Blessings

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


Moreover, some of them had a blatanly Gnostic view on sex as something inherently sinful, regardless of marriage. St. John Chrysostomos, for example, plainly wrote in his homilies on Genesis that Adam and Eve certainly never had any bodily intercourse before the Fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. What, this sleazy, dirty, horrible thing, with these moans, etc.? Can one even see anything HOLY in THAT???  Tongue
That is certainly NOT how St. John characterizes marriage. Quite the opposite.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,845



« Reply #169 on: December 06, 2010, 02:54:33 AM »

Dear brother Heorhij,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then by natural law we must marry every woman off as soon as she ovulates.  Don't know what we will do with the boys, with all that waste of spermazoa in even EVERY success intercourse. Of course, we will have to force the monks and nuns to marry: after all, they are wasting all those gametes not bearing children.
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #170 on: December 06, 2010, 11:32:54 AM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,845



« Reply #171 on: December 06, 2010, 11:41:11 AM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #172 on: December 06, 2010, 11:43:39 AM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

But, in all those forms, you have changed the sex act. NFP is the same act, just timed during "less" fertile periods.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,845



« Reply #173 on: December 06, 2010, 11:53:00 AM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

With the high dose pill, sterilization etc. it is the same act, just making it that much less fertile.
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #174 on: December 06, 2010, 12:23:14 PM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Adultery is irrelevant and a different sin altogether.

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

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

And with a pill, or whatever, you've physically changed the natural state to meet your needs.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #175 on: December 06, 2010, 01:10:39 PM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.
It's not contraception, since you are really placing no barriers in the way to stop that possibility of conceiving a child.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #176 on: December 06, 2010, 05:01:25 PM »


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

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

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

2,  Condoms have a 7% failure rate.

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


Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #177 on: December 06, 2010, 05:05:35 PM »


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

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

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

2,  Condoms have a 7% failure rate.

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



How is NFP preventing conception?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #178 on: December 06, 2010, 05:20:25 PM »


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

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

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

2,  Condoms have a 7% failure rate.

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



How is NFP preventing conception?

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

One can also point to the fact that in many European cities the Muslim birthrate is greater than the Catholic birthrate.  Obviously the Catholic use of NFP is being very successful in preventing conception.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #179 on: December 06, 2010, 05:30:26 PM »

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

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

2,  Condoms have a 7% failure rate.

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

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

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

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

I don't think this is relevant. Birthrate in Europe is largely due to secular desires, and not focused on family. If the Catholic is faithful enough to use NFP instead of contraceptives, they are also more likely to have a higher birth rate.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   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 0.196 seconds with 72 queries.