OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 06:18:19 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 44521 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #180 on: December 06, 2010, 05:36:14 PM »


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

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

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

2,  Condoms have a 7% failure rate.

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



How is NFP preventing conception?

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

One can also point to the fact that in many European cities the Muslim birthrate is greater than the Catholic birthrate.  Obviously the Catholic use of NFP is being very successful in preventing conception.
I just don't see it as actively preventing conception, maybe I need to think that out a bit so I can express it better.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #181 on: December 06, 2010, 06:16:06 PM »

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Adultery is irrelevant and a different sin altogether.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not to be indelicate, but to stop comparing apples and oranges (as very few people have ever expressed a fondness for condoms, no matter how much they use them), compare intercourse with a lubricant (or do you think that is not allowed?) and that with a lubricant with a spermicide.
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #182 on: December 06, 2010, 06:21:13 PM »

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.
It's not contraception, since you are really placing no barriers in the way to stop that possibility of conceiving a child.
LOL. Sure you are, putting space between the genitals of the couple is the only 100% effective barrier to stop the possibility of conceiving a child.
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 #183 on: December 06, 2010, 06:23:40 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #184 on: December 06, 2010, 06:28:01 PM »

If you'll understand, I see a distinction between "prevention" and "avoiding". And so, I'm arguing that prevention is morally wrong, while avoiding is not.

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

Avoidance includes 'abstinence', 'celibacy', 'rhythm method/NFP, etc.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #185 on: December 06, 2010, 06:44:52 PM »


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

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

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #186 on: December 06, 2010, 06:58:05 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lubricants don't have anything to do with prevention or avoiding pregnancy (unless it's spermicidal).
Prevention of pregnancy=avoidance of pregnancy.
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 #187 on: December 06, 2010, 06:59:11 PM »


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

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

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


I don't see a contradiction.

I see 'wasting the seed' as within the bounds of prevention.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #188 on: December 06, 2010, 07:00:43 PM »

If you'll understand, I see a distinction between "prevention" and "avoiding". And so, I'm arguing that prevention is morally wrong, while avoiding is not.

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

Avoidance includes 'abstinence', 'celibacy', 'rhythm method/NFP, etc.
"Preventing implantation of the egg" is something else, i.e. abortion.
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #189 on: December 06, 2010, 07:01:56 PM »


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

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

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


I don't see a contradiction.

I see 'wasting the seed' as within the bounds of prevention.
but those (celibate) fathers that you cited as authorities did not see it that way.
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 #190 on: December 06, 2010, 07:04:27 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

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

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

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

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

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

Disagree. You haven't proved them equal, yet.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #191 on: December 06, 2010, 07:05:07 PM »

If you'll understand, I see a distinction between "prevention" and "avoiding". And so, I'm arguing that prevention is morally wrong, while avoiding is not.

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

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

I agree, however "the pill" is a contraceptive and does just this.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #192 on: December 06, 2010, 07:06:18 PM »


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

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

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


I don't see a contradiction.

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

Did they not? In their limited understanding of the reproductive processes of modern (2d century) science?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #193 on: December 06, 2010, 07:15:31 PM »


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

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

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


I don't see a contradiction.

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

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

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

An irrelevant detail thrown in to paint other non-abortifacient methods in a dark light. And also incorrect: the penitentiary has some discussion about a spouse's insistence, enshrined in that romantic term "marital debt" of which St. Jerome is fond. And he is clear, a husband who ejaculates in his wife's womb when it cannot conceive, is as guilty of wasting seed "the despicable crime of Onanism" as the husband who spills his seed outside his wife's womb when she can conceive, as St. Clement states
And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."

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

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

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

The concept of sexual pleasure in the Catholic moral tradition By Shaji George Kochuthara
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZFbjyIn6j4oC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=Clement+Alexandria+outrage+nature&source=bl&ots=vD8iy14csh&sig=_9D3f87h0vxqrXdsGGLUu9RYm0A&hl=en&ei=X0XbTIrLNtyrnAez2p0W&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Clement%20Alexandria%20outrage%20nature&f=false
shows that many (but not all, there were exceptions) of those Fathers that HV claims as its basis basically view marriage like animal husbandry, an ironic mix as they both condemn those who enjoy intercourse as animals while as the same time calling us to imitate animals in breeding only during estris, demanding that the image and likeness of God overcome his nature and imitate angels while demanding that "we should take nature as our instructor," i.e. natural law (the book also shows that these Fathers adopted pagan Stoicism as the basis of their views). St. Clement says "a man who marries for the sake of begeting children [which he states is the only reason to marry] must practice continence so that it is not desire that he feels for his wife, whom he ought to love [he insists that there's an opposition of desire and love, based on Stoicism], so that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will." In other words, marital embrace should resemble an artifical insemination, ironic as I am sure that St. Clement would join HV in condemning that, as both are inconsistent in the same way.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 07:23:46 PM by ialmisry » 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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #194 on: December 06, 2010, 07:50:49 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lubricants don't have anything to do with prevention or avoiding pregnancy (unless it's spermicidal).
Prevention of pregnancy=avoidance of pregnancy.
Disagree. You haven't proved them equal, yet.
Same ends, same results, same intention.
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #195 on: December 06, 2010, 08:12:59 PM »

On the issue of natural law, the "Catholic Coferance of Illinois" issued a statement

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

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

Basically, the Vatican sees marriage as an instituion conformed to human nature and therefore based on natural law.  For Orthodoxy, marriage is the embodiment of the image and likeness that Revelation tells us is the essence of man, which nature reflects.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 08:13:31 PM by ialmisry » 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #196 on: December 07, 2010, 01:16:45 AM »

On the issue of natural law, the "Catholic Coferance of Illinois" issued a statement

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

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

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

Crossing paths on the way through the Toll Booths:

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

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

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #197 on: December 07, 2010, 01:59:58 AM »

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

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

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

Does this mean Catholics are prohibited from what we could loosely call any forms of foreplay?  The Catholic commentary is quite specific - all types of outercourse are impermissible.   
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #198 on: December 07, 2010, 02:41:21 AM »

On the issue of natural law, the "Catholic Coferance of Illinois" issued a statement

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

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

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

Crossing paths on the way through the Toll Booths:

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

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

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

And the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob doesn't have parts. Don't know about the deity you worship. Placing yourself among Toll Booths, you're not going to find Truth there.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2010, 02:45:49 AM by ialmisry » 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 #199 on: December 07, 2010, 02:47:35 AM »

On the issue of natural law, the "Catholic Coferance of Illinois" issued a statement

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

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

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

Crossing paths on the way through the Toll Booths:

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

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

The only part I can think of is the Sacred Prepuce which is preserved in some Catholic church in Europe.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #200 on: December 07, 2010, 05:48:15 PM »

On the issue of natural law, the "Catholic Coferance of Illinois" issued a statement

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

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

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

Crossing paths on the way through the Toll Booths:

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

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

The only part I can think of is the Sacred Prepuce which is preserved in some Catholic church in Europe.
I still don't get it: maybe this is what EM was thinking of
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-2/condom-being-inflated-over-mans-head.jpg
as most people I figure do not wear condoms on their back.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2010, 05:48:43 PM by ialmisry » 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
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #201 on: December 07, 2010, 06:15:18 PM »

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #202 on: December 07, 2010, 07:00:09 PM »

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Quote
The Moral Difference Between Contraception and Natural Family Planning
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html
suffers from the natural law folks' addiction to syllogism, no matter how false, along with their determinatist bent in action theory.  This seems to stem from St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state, a position which was not accepted as Orthodox, and hence the peripheral use of Natural Law in Orthodox theology, in particular perhaps moral theology, as opposed to the Vatican's heavy dependence on it.

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
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 7,043



« Reply #203 on: December 07, 2010, 07:05:13 PM »

St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state

Not that I doubt what you are saying but do you happen to remember where St. Augustine said that?
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #204 on: December 07, 2010, 07:32:09 PM »

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Quote
The Moral Difference Between Contraception and Natural Family Planning
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html
suffers from the natural law folks' addiction to syllogism, no matter how false, along with their determinatist bent in action theory.  This seems to stem from St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state, a position which was not accepted as Orthodox, and hence the peripheral use of Natural Law in Orthodox theology, in particular perhaps moral theology, as opposed to the Vatican's heavy dependence on it.



Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.

EDIT: I'm sure you'll find some reason why that's related to some heresy, too, and then subsequently equate similar reasoning with dependency.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2010, 07:33:07 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #205 on: December 07, 2010, 07:55:04 PM »

Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.


Deductive reasoning can be heavily compromised by the inadequate knowledge of the person using it.  It can also be used thoroughly dishonestly by the person willing to suppress other relevant factors.

We have just seem this with your quotes from Saint John Chrysostom in the papacy thread.  What you deduced from those quotes and what you were asking us to deduce from them was compromised by either 1) your lack of knowledge of Chrysostom's words on the other Apostles or 2) you wanted to lead us astray and into the erroneous understandings of Roman Catholicism?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #206 on: December 07, 2010, 08:25:56 PM »

Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.


Deductive reasoning can be heavily compromised by the inadequate knowledge of the person using it.  It can also be used thoroughly dishonestly by the person willing to suppress other relevant factors.

We have just seem this with your quotes from Saint John Chrysostom in the papacy thread.  What you deduced from those quotes and what you were asking us to deduce from them was compromised by either 1) your lack of knowledge of Chrysostom's words on the other Apostles or 2) you wanted to lead us astray and into the erroneous understandings of Roman Catholicism?

Or (3) an open invitation to prove me wrong.

When I make statements on here, I want you to prove me wrong. If I continue the debate, it is because I'm not yet convinced.

Those quotes were not my own, as can be easily seen. I can't, and still can't, find primary sources for context, which irks me to no end.

(2) is particularly annoying, as it would seem presumes both (1) intent to "harm" and (2) a true belief that RC is erroneous on my part.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #207 on: December 07, 2010, 08:48:06 PM »

Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.


Deductive reasoning can be heavily compromised by the inadequate knowledge of the person using it.  It can also be used thoroughly dishonestly by the person willing to suppress other relevant factors.

We have just seem this with your quotes from Saint John Chrysostom in the papacy thread.  What you deduced from those quotes and what you were asking us to deduce from them was compromised by either 1) your lack of knowledge of Chrysostom's words on the other Apostles or 2) you wanted to lead us astray and into the erroneous understandings of Roman Catholicism?

Or (3) an open invitation to prove me wrong.

When I make statements on here, I want you to prove me wrong.
.

I did that by giving you what Saint John Chrysostom wrote about the holy Apostle John.  He is just as effusive about him as he is about Saint Peter.

See message 53
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28946.msg503799/topicseen.html#msg503799
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #208 on: December 07, 2010, 08:50:55 PM »

Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.


Deductive reasoning can be heavily compromised by the inadequate knowledge of the person using it.  It can also be used thoroughly dishonestly by the person willing to suppress other relevant factors.

We have just seem this with your quotes from Saint John Chrysostom in the papacy thread.  What you deduced from those quotes and what you were asking us to deduce from them was compromised by either 1) your lack of knowledge of Chrysostom's words on the other Apostles or 2) you wanted to lead us astray and into the erroneous understandings of Roman Catholicism?

Or (3) an open invitation to prove me wrong.

When I make statements on here, I want you to prove me wrong.
.

I did that by giving you what Saint John Chrysostom wrote about the holy Apostle John.  He is just as effusive about him as he is about Saint Peter.

See message 53
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28946.msg503799/topicseen.html#msg503799

Just saw that. I've been thinking about what you've said. Just don't have anything intelligent to say, yet.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #209 on: December 07, 2010, 09:50:04 PM »

St. Augustine has some interesting thoughts on the topic of surrogate motherhood (something the Vatican now forbids, as does the Orthodox)
Quote
Chapter 25.— Of Sarah's Handmaid, Hagar, Whom She Herself Wished to Be Abraham's Concubine.
And here follow the times of Abraham's sons, the one by Hagar the bond maid, the other by Sarah the free woman, about whom we have already spoken in the previous book. As regards this transaction, Abraham is in no way to be branded as guilty concerning this concubine, for he used her for the begetting of progeny, not for the gratification of lust; and not to insult, but rather to obey his wife, who supposed it would be solace of her barrenness if she could make use of the fruitful womb of her handmaid to supply the defect of her own nature, and by that law of which the apostle says, Likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife, 1 Corinthians 7:4 could, as a wife, make use of him for childbearing by another, when she could not do so in her own person. Here there is no wanton lust, no filthy lewdness. The handmaid is delivered to the husband by the wife for the sake of progeny, and is received by the husband for the sake of progeny, each seeking, not guilty excess, but natural fruit. And when the pregnant bond woman despised her barren mistress, and Sarah, with womanly jealousy, rather laid the blame of this on her husband, even then Abraham showed that he was not a slavish lover, but a free begetter of children, and that in using Hagar he had guarded the chastity of Sarah his wife, and had gratified her will and not his own—had received her without seeking, had gone in to her without being attached, had impregnated without loving her—for he says, Behold your maid is in your hands: do to her as it pleases you; Genesis 16:6 a man able to use women as a man should—his wife temperately, his handmaid compliantly, neither intemperately!
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm

That Humanae Vitae does not cite patristics is not always a bad thing.
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 #210 on: December 07, 2010, 09:56:26 PM »

Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.


Deductive reasoning can be heavily compromised by the inadequate knowledge of the person using it.  It can also be used thoroughly dishonestly by the person willing to suppress other relevant factors.

We have just seem this with your quotes from Saint John Chrysostom in the papacy thread.  What you deduced from those quotes and what you were asking us to deduce from them was compromised by either 1) your lack of knowledge of Chrysostom's words on the other Apostles or 2) you wanted to lead us astray and into the erroneous understandings of Roman Catholicism?

Or (3) an open invitation to prove me wrong.

When I make statements on here, I want you to prove me wrong.
.

I did that by giving you what Saint John Chrysostom wrote about the holy Apostle John.  He is just as effusive about him as he is about Saint Peter.

See message 53
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28946.msg503799/topicseen.html#msg503799

Just saw that. I've been thinking about what you've said. Just don't have anything intelligent to say, yet.


Many times you come across as representing a pro-Roman position.  But I now see from your message 206 that in fact you are wanting the Orthodox to disprove that position.  May we succeed!  laugh laugh
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #211 on: December 07, 2010, 09:56:36 PM »

St. Augustine has some interesting thoughts on the topic of surrogate motherhood (something the Vatican now forbids, as does the Orthodox)

I didn't realize that. What is the reasoning?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #212 on: December 07, 2010, 10:01:39 PM »

St. Augustine has some interesting thoughts on the topic of surrogate motherhood (something the Vatican now forbids, as does the Orthodox)

I didn't realize that. What is the reasoning?
On what?
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #213 on: December 07, 2010, 10:01:50 PM »

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Well gracious goodness...that should tell you something.  Smiley

The Church allows for contraception under some very narrow guidelines.  No ARTIFICIAL means please.  And IF one has a contraceptive outlook, let it be for spacing children, not avoiding them, and let it be for the health of one partner or the other or the salvation of a soul.

All the rest of the squirming on the part of some Orthodox over this topic is irrelevant. 

And there is clear proof that some Orthodox clergy do get it because they are promoting NFP.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #214 on: December 07, 2010, 10:01:52 PM »

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Quote
The Moral Difference Between Contraception and Natural Family Planning
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html
suffers from the natural law folks' addiction to syllogism, no matter how false, along with their determinatist bent in action theory.  This seems to stem from St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state, a position which was not accepted as Orthodox, and hence the peripheral use of Natural Law in Orthodox theology, in particular perhaps moral theology, as opposed to the Vatican's heavy dependence on it.



Which makes ever more clear to me the absurdity of the Catholic Church trying to engage Orthodoxy in ANY kind of so-called common approach to the morality of Europe or anywhere else in the world.  It is a Fool's Errand!!

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #215 on: December 07, 2010, 10:08:30 PM »

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Well gracious goodness...that should tell you something.  Smiley

The Church allows for contraception under some very narrow guidelines.  No ARTIFICIAL means please.
OK. Withdrawal.
Quote
  And IF one has a contraceptive outlook, let it be for spacing children, not avoiding them, and let it be for the health of one partner or the other or the salvation of a soul.

All the rest of the squirming on the part of some Orthodox over this topic is irrelevant.


We aren't the ones squirming.

Quote
And there is clear proof that some Orthodox clergy do get it because they are promoting NFP.
Weren't you just dismissing one of the Vatican's moral theologians for being a dissident?  Promonting the rhythm method of contraception is one thing, demanding it is quite another.
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 #216 on: December 07, 2010, 10:10:28 PM »


And there is clear proof that some Orthodox clergy do get it because they are promoting NFP.


We have heard of these rare birds, Fathers Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

No, I exaggerate.  One of them does not promote NFP but he condemns it as grossly sinful.

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #217 on: December 07, 2010, 10:17:42 PM »


The Church allows for contraception under some very narrow guidelines.  No ARTIFICIAL means please.  


I'd give that a Yes and a No!  It's verging on deception.  As we both of us know your Church allows the use of even the most sinful and murderous kinds of artificial contraception if either the husband or the wife insists on it.  The other spouse, even though a Catholic, has the blessing of your Church to acquiesce and to participate in the use of even abortifacients.

You know this, I know this.  It is in the Vademecum published by the Vatican for confessors.  
« Last Edit: December 07, 2010, 10:25:17 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #218 on: December 07, 2010, 10:18:05 PM »

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Quote
The Moral Difference Between Contraception and Natural Family Planning
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html
suffers from the natural law folks' addiction to syllogism, no matter how false, along with their determinatist bent in action theory.  This seems to stem from St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state, a position which was not accepted as Orthodox, and hence the peripheral use of Natural Law in Orthodox theology, in particular perhaps moral theology, as opposed to the Vatican's heavy dependence on it.



Which makes ever more clear to me the absurdity of the Catholic Church trying to engage Orthodoxy in ANY kind of so-called common approach to the morality of Europe or anywhere else in the world.  It is a Fool's Errand!!

M.
That is the problem: the Vatican's insistence on seeing natural law not as the laws of nature but the natural method of learning about the law of God (thanks to Thomas Aquinas). We have no problem arguing on the basis of natural law and even of co-ordinating social action with non-believers by it, but we will not substitute natural theology for the Creed.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2010, 10:19:57 PM by ialmisry » 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 #219 on: December 07, 2010, 10:18:34 PM »

St. Augustine has some interesting thoughts on the topic of surrogate motherhood (something the Vatican now forbids, as does the Orthodox)

I didn't realize that. What is the reasoning?
On what?

Against surrogate mothers.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #220 on: December 07, 2010, 10:19:07 PM »


And there is clear proof that some Orthodox clergy do get it because they are promoting NFP.


We have heard of these rare birds, Fathers Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

No, I exaggerate.  One of them does not promote NFP but he condemns it as grossly sinful.


Which one is that, Father?
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 #221 on: December 07, 2010, 10:20:50 PM »


And there is clear proof that some Orthodox clergy do get it because they are promoting NFP.


We have heard of these rare birds, Fathers Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

No, I exaggerate.  One of them does not promote NFP but he condemns it as grossly sinful.

Sinful?
Logged


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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #222 on: December 07, 2010, 10:23:08 PM »

Here is what I don't understand: How on earth anyone can say that NFP is the same as ABC. ABC violates natural law because it purposely frustrates the normal functioning of the human body with regard to reproduction. NFP does no such thing. There are supposed to be only certain days during the month when woman has a substantial probability of getting pregnant. There are supposed to be days when that probability is extremely low. This is written into the nature of the female body. This is a real and substantial difference. And that real difference leads to practical results in the building of virtue. One method (NFP) teaches a person self control, the other (ABC) teaches a person to satisfy his or her passions on demand.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #223 on: December 07, 2010, 10:42:44 PM »

St. Augustine has some interesting thoughts on the topic of surrogate motherhood (something the Vatican now forbids, as does the Orthodox)

I didn't realize that. What is the reasoning?
On what?


Against surrogate mothers.
It is adultery, because it involves a third party (besides the Church) in the union of one flesh of the couple. Hence the canons etc. against concubinage and surrogate fathers (ancient Sparta had mandated that, so it wasn't new), are in full force.

Btw, this is not my own teaching
Quote
Tenth All American Council-On Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and the Sanctity of Life:The Procreation of Children  
Married couples may use medical means to enhance conception of their common children, but the use of semen or ova other than that of the married couple who both take responsibility for their offspring is forbidden
http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=19
Quote
XII. 4. New biomedical methods make it possible in many cases to overcome the infirmity of infertility. At the same time, the growing technological interference in the conception of human life presents a threat to the spiritual integrity and physical health of a person. A threat comes also for interpersonal relations on which the community has been built from of old. The development of the above-mentioned technologies has brought about the ideology of the so-called reproductive rights, widely propagated today on both national and international levels. This ideological system assumes that the sexual and social self-fulfilment of a person has a priority over concern for the future of a child, the spiritual and physical health of society and its moral sustainability. There is a growing attitude to the human life as a product which can be chosen according to one's own inclinations and which can be disposed of along with material goods.

In the prayers of the marriage celebration, the Orthodox Church expresses the hope that childbirth, while being a desired fruit of lawful marriage, is not its only purpose. Along with «a fruit of the womb to profit», the Church asks for the gift of enduring love, chastity and «the harmony of the souls and bodies». Therefore, the Church cannot regard as morally justified the ways to childbirth disagreeable with the design of the Creator of life. If a husband or a wife is sterile and the therapeutic and surgical methods of infertility treatment do not help the spouses, they should humbly accept childlessness as a special calling in life. In these cases, pastoral counsel should consider the adoption of a child by the spouses' mutual consent. Among the admissible means of medical aid may be an artificial insemination by the husband's germ cells, since it does not violate the integrity of the marital union and does not differ basically from the natural conception and takes place in the context of marital relations.

However, manipulations involved in the donation of germ cells do violate the integrity of a person and the unique nature of marital relations by allowing of a third party to interfere. In addition, this practice encourages the irresponsible fatherhood or motherhood, admittedly free from any commitment to those who are «flesh of the flesh» of anonymous donors. The use of donor material undermines the foundations of family relationships, since it presupposes that a child has, in addition to the «social» parents, the so-called biological ones. «Surrogate motherhood», that is, the bearing of a fertilised ovule by a woman who after the delivery returns the child to the «customers», is unnatural and morally inadmissible even in those cases where it is realised on a non-commercial basis. This method involves the violation of the profound emotional and spiritual intimacy that is established between mother and child already during the pregnancy. «Surrogate motherhood» traumatises both the bearing woman, whose mother's feelings are trampled upon, and the child who may subsequently experience an identity crisis. Morally inadmissible from the Orthodox point of view are also all kinds of extracorporal fertilisation involving the production, conservation and purposeful destruction of «spare» embryos. It is on the recognition of the human dignity even in an embryo that the moral assessment of abortion by the Church is based (see, XII. 2).

The insemination of single women with the use of donor germ cells or the realisation of the «reproductive rights» of single men and persons with the so-called non-standard sexual orientation deprive the future child of the right to have mother and father. The use of reproductive methods outside the context of the God-blessed family has become a form of theomachism carried out under the pretext of the protection of the individual's autonomy and wrongly-understood individual freedom.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

My own view (and I seem to be in opposition to my own pastor on this, so it is my own views) that a possible exception would be the surrogates for "snow flake adoptions," frozen fetuses abandoned by their parents (why the Orthodox Church forbids this) who are adopted and born by their adoptive mother. The reason is that the fetuses, not taken out of frozen suspension, will degenerate i.e. die.  An argument may be made for a woman willing to bear them but not able to adopt them, do to the emmient death, but I'm not as sure on that.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2010, 10:49:28 PM by ialmisry » 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 #224 on: December 07, 2010, 10:48:29 PM »

Here is what I don't understand: How on earth anyone can say that NFP is the same as ABC.


The Catholic commentary provided by Azurestone to the two quotes from the teaching of Saint Clement of Alexandria, affirm that it is a mortal sin to waste semen.  The intention of a Catholic couple using NFP to enjoy sex in the non fertile period is to waste the husband's semen without conceiving a child. NFP is mortally sinful when used in this way, and let's face it this is the major use of NFP by Roman Catholics - to avoid conceiving or to "space" children.   NFP involves wasting gallons of semen.

Again, it is helpful for to keep things in perspective and remember that a mere 2-3% of Roman Catholic couples use NFP anyway.  It's a dead duck in the water.  Catholics see no need to pay attention to the opinions of the Pope.
Logged
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 0.22 seconds with 72 queries.