OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 01:38:28 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 38983 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,267


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #450 on: April 19, 2012, 12:48:28 AM »

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception
I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).
I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."

However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:
His Emminence Met. Kallistos wrote the excellent but subsequently corrected (on numerous points) 1963 edition of The Orthodox Church while still a laymen (albeit a very intelligent and academically competent/credentialed one) of 29 years of age; he was chrismated into the Orthodox Church 5 years earlier at age 24.

You might consider the need to demonstrate rather than simply assume that changes in this book reflect changes in the Orthodox Church per se rather than corrections to the book which might well have a completely different explanation. For all we know Met. Kallistos may have simply realized subsequently that he had gotten some points a tad wrong in the first edition.

On another note, even acknowledging that Orthodox writers have changed some of what has been said regarding contraception it is another question why what has been said might have changed or advanced, e.g. whether as alleged by some Roman Catholic apologists being due to some fundamental alteration of the faith (which I personally see no evidence of) or e.g. with increased understandings of the biology of various forms of contraception with the development of the physical sciences, e.g.

"Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health." http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

But outmoded Aristotelian philosophy isn't dogma in Orthodox quarters, and isn't generally regarded as credible by professional philosophers today, Christian or otherwise, outside the halls of Roman Catholic institutions. It seems to me this is due to the late elevation of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas to the official level in the 19th century in Roman Catholicism rather than to some alleged logical or intellectual necessity of properly illumined philosophical intellect as many Roman Catholics are wont to suppose (in accordance with late (later than the Protestant Reformation in this case) RC dogmatic necessities unknown to the Undivided Church before the schism).



« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 01:19:55 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #451 on: April 19, 2012, 12:15:23 PM »

Everytime I see Izzy post on this thread, I just see some one screaming and shaking their fists. I don't know why. But this is what I always see in my mind.


See my p.m. to you.
Secrets?

No.  Paranoid?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,146


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #452 on: April 19, 2012, 12:17:46 PM »

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception
I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).
I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."

However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:
His Emminence Met. Kallistos wrote the excellent but subsequently corrected (on numerous points) 1963 edition of The Orthodox Church while still a laymen (albeit a very intelligent and academically competent/credentialed one) of 29 years of age; he was chrismated into the Orthodox Church 5 years earlier at age 24.

You might consider the need to demonstrate rather than simply assume that changes in this book reflect changes in the Orthodox Church per se rather than corrections to the book which might well have a completely different explanation. For all we know Met. Kallistos may have simply realized subsequently that he had gotten some points a tad wrong in the first edition.

On another note, even acknowledging that Orthodox writers have changed some of what has been said regarding contraception it is another question why what has been said might have changed or advanced, e.g. whether as alleged by some Roman Catholic apologists being due to some fundamental alteration of the faith (which I personally see no evidence of) or e.g. with increased understandings of the biology of various forms of contraception with the development of the physical sciences, e.g.

"Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health." http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

But outmoded Aristotelian philosophy isn't dogma in Orthodox quarters, and isn't generally regarded as credible by professional philosophers today, Christian or otherwise, outside the halls of Roman Catholic institutions. It seems to me this is due to the late elevation of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas to the official level in the 19th century in Roman Catholicism rather than to some alleged logical or intellectual necessity of properly illumined philosophical intellect as many Roman Catholics are wont to suppose (in accordance with late (later than the Protestant Reformation in this case) RC dogmatic necessities unknown to the Undivided Church before the schism).




You don't have to accept all of aristotle's particular scientific views to accept his common sense realism.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #453 on: April 19, 2012, 12:55:15 PM »

But outmoded Aristotelian philosophy isn't dogma in Orthodox quarters, and isn't generally regarded as credible by professional philosophers today, Christian or otherwise, outside the halls of Roman Catholic institutions. It seems to me this is due to the late elevation of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas to the official level in the 19th century in Roman Catholicism rather than to some alleged logical or intellectual necessity of properly illumined philosophical intellect as many Roman Catholics are wont to suppose (in accordance with late (later than the Protestant Reformation in this case) RC dogmatic necessities unknown to the Undivided Church before the schism).
You don't have to accept all of aristotle's particular scientific views to accept his common sense realism.
but you do to accept the Vatican's extravagent extrapolations therefrom.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 12:56:01 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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,547



« Reply #454 on: April 19, 2012, 02:27:41 PM »

Just came across this, thanks to Fabio. I'm just putting up the google translation, as I don't have the time right now:
Quote
What are the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism?

1. Faith and Reason

Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain the faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, it is not based on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave to his followers believe. Do not refuse the support of physics, biology or chemistry in the teachings of the Church. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by the intellectual achievements of man. She does not bow before such things, and does not change the thinking of the Christian faith because of human thought and science.

St. Basil the Great warned the young monks on the use of Greek philosophy, so that the utilizassem as the bee uses the flower. "Take only the 'honey' - the truth - that God planted in the world to prepare man for the coming of the Lord."

For example, the Greeks had the doctrine of the Logos. The Gospel of John begins, / "In the beginning was the Word" / (Logos in Greek). For pagans, the Logos was not God, as He is for Christians, but a principle, a power, a power by which "God" created and governs the world.

The Church Fatherspointed to the similarity between the Logos and the Logos Bible of Greek Philosophy as a sign of Divine Providence. The difference is attributed to man's sin and the weakness of human intellect. This recalls the words of the Apostle Paul: / "Take ye heed, that no one deceive you with vain philosophies and sophistries based on human traditions, in the rudiments of the world, instead of relying on Christ." / (Col. 2: Cool.
Moreover, Catholicism gives a high value due to the human. His story shows us the consequences of that trust. For example, in the Middle Ages, during the twelfth century, the theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas "joined" Christianity with the philosophy of Aristotle. From this period, Hispanics began to swing like never before thanks to this respect for human wisdom, alternating between radical theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.
http://vidaortodoxa.blogspot.com/2009/01/quais-as-diferenas-entre-ortodoxia-e-o.html

The use of science/philosophy to create, rather than defend, the Church's beliefs lays at the source of the problem of the Vatican's "Natural Law."

I agree with this. Excellent explanation and summation.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #455 on: April 19, 2012, 03:32:01 PM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 03:38:08 PM by samkim » Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #456 on: April 19, 2012, 03:46:15 PM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.

Would you mind elaborating some on your first paragraph?  Thanks!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #457 on: April 19, 2012, 03:54:08 PM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.

Would you mind elaborating some on your first paragraph?  Thanks!

The idea that natural law theory is an attempt to get around God and revelation is a most uncharitable attempt to grasp what Catholics and others are trying to say.
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #458 on: April 19, 2012, 04:01:54 PM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.

Would you mind elaborating some on your first paragraph?  Thanks!

The idea that natural law theory is an attempt to get around God and revelation is a most uncharitable attempt to grasp what Catholics and others are trying to say.

Okay.  That's kinda what I thought you were saying but wasn't totally sure.  I can be a little dense sometimes  Grin.  Thanks!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #459 on: April 19, 2012, 04:40:53 PM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.
Logos Spermatikos is a dogma of the Stoics, which was conected with their materialism. Somewhere up this thread we've touched on that.  When the Holy Fathers speak of the Logos and the Logoi, they are not using the philosophers' concepts and definitions (the mistake of thinking they did led to the filioque).

Natural law theory tries reading the Stoics logos and logos spermatikos into the words of St. Paul.  Hence its error.  As I've pointed out, that's like Luther reading his reformation into the words of St. Paul, and about as valid as the scholastics' attempts.

The Fathers speak, and St. Paul, of δικαιον φυσικον ius naturalis natural right/justice.  Not lex naturalis natural law.
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #460 on: April 19, 2012, 04:47:04 PM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.

Would you mind elaborating some on your first paragraph?  Thanks!

The idea that natural law theory is an attempt to get around God and revelation is a most uncharitable attempt to grasp what Catholics and others are trying to say.
That Aquinas quotes "The Philosopher" Aristotle as equal authority to the Prophets and Apostles, and that the CCC cites as its authority on "natural law" the pagan Cicero as a philosopher, and the attempt of the Summa Theologica and its like (for instance, Gratian's principle of canon law in the Corpus that "what is based on tradition must yield to what is based on reason"-odd, given the supremacy he gives to Rome, something only founded on Tradition in the Vatican's understanding) to speculate on theology from philosophy....etc...is enough culpable evidence that the scholastics have elevated philosophy to God's revelation.
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 #461 on: April 19, 2012, 09:25:42 PM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.

God bless you for having the courage to say so in the face of the avalanche of pseudo-wisdom-pseudo-knowledge that is the core of this and every other thread on the subject that highlights the personal opinions of al Misry and which distort the most fundamental of truths.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #462 on: April 19, 2012, 10:45:26 PM »

Quote
Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and
Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 562-564; Pius XII, Address to Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi, VI, 191-192; Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 842-843; Address to Family Campaign and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 857-859; John XXIII, encyc. letter Pacem in terris: AAS 55 (1963), 259]-260  [TPS IX, 15-16]; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 51: AAS 58 (1966), 1072 [TPS XI, 293].) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (See Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 565; Decree of the Holy Office, Feb. 22, 1940: AAS 32 (1940), 73; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843-844; to the Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395].)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 559-561; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843; to the Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395]; John XXIII, encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 447 [TPS VII, 331].)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," (See Pius XII, Address to National Congress of Italian Society of the Union of Catholic Jurists: AAS 45 (1953), 798-799 [TPS I, 67-69].) it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (See Rom 3. 8 )—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
There is some mixing in the sources, hence the varied colors.  I tried to error on the side of Tradition as far as possible.

Btw, the reference to the Roman Catechism is interesting, as it expounds on St. Jerome's dictum that spouses should not be too passionate towards one another, like adulterers.  Given that, as the statement of the Holy Russian Synod quotes, the NT describes the model of marital love as Christ has for the Church, it would seem that St. Jerome thinks that a tepid nominalism, going to Church only when required and needed, is the goal for the Christian life. Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 10:49:26 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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #463 on: April 19, 2012, 10:47:46 PM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.

God bless you for having the courage to say so in the face of the avalanche of pseudo-wisdom-pseudo-knowledge that is the core of this and every other thread on the subject that highlights the personal opinions of al Misry and which distort the most fundamental of truths.
Sic Maria ex cathedra dixit.+April 19, 2012

Now he only has to substantiate 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #464 on: April 20, 2012, 10:24:21 AM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.

God bless you for having the courage to say so in the face of the avalanche of pseudo-wisdom-pseudo-knowledge that is the core of this and every other thread on the subject that highlights the personal opinions of al Misry and which distort the most fundamental of truths.
Sic Maria ex cathedra dixit.+April 19, 2012

Now he only has to substantiate it.

Fact is that in a real junk pile there's nothing to pick but junk.

Question is whether or not it is worth his time to pick...

M.
Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,228


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #465 on: April 20, 2012, 10:37:05 AM »

Quote
Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 562-564; Pius XII, Address to Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi, VI, 191-192; Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 842-843; Address to Family Campaign and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 857-859; John XXIII, encyc. letter Pacem in terris: AAS 55 (1963), 259]-260  [TPS IX, 15-16]; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 51: AAS 58 (1966), 1072 [TPS XI, 293].) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (See Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 565; Decree of the Holy Office, Feb. 22, 1940: AAS 32 (1940), 73; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843-844; to the Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395].)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 559-561; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843; to the Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395]; John XXIII, encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 447 [TPS VII, 331].)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," (See Pius XII, Address to National Congress of Italian Society of the Union of Catholic Jurists: AAS 45 (1953), 798-799 [TPS I, 67-69].) it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (See Rom 3. 8 )—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong


equals junk EM?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #466 on: April 20, 2012, 10:45:54 AM »

Quote
Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 562-564; Pius XII, Address to Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi, VI, 191-192; Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 842-843; Address to Family Campaign and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 857-859; John XXIII, encyc. letter Pacem in terris: AAS 55 (1963), 259]-260  [TPS IX, 15-16]; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 51: AAS 58 (1966), 1072 [TPS XI, 293].) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (See Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 565; Decree of the Holy Office, Feb. 22, 1940: AAS 32 (1940), 73; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843-844; to the Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395].)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 559-561; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843; to the Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395]; John XXIII, encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 447 [TPS VII, 331].)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," (See Pius XII, Address to National Congress of Italian Society of the Union of Catholic Jurists: AAS 45 (1953), 798-799 [TPS I, 67-69].) it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (See Rom 3. 8 )—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong


equals junk EM?

PP

This is nothing really to do with the point that the poster made about al Misry's gross distortions of the meaning of natural law in the Catholic Church.  So in that sense yes, because it does nothing to clear out the mess that is already made.

M.
Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #467 on: April 20, 2012, 11:46:52 AM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.

God bless you for having the courage to say so in the face of the avalanche of pseudo-wisdom-pseudo-knowledge that is the core of this and every other thread on the subject that highlights the personal opinions of al Misry and which distort the most fundamental of truths.
Sic Maria ex cathedra dixit.+April 19, 2012

Now he only has to substantiate it.

Fact is that in a real junk pile there's nothing to pick but junk.

Question is whether or not it is worth his time to pick...
treading sour grapes into whine I see.  Not worth anyone's time picking through those dregs.  Nor this froth, all fluff and no substance.  Just bitter taste.



With great hesitation I would say.....

Sheeesh!  The continued sniping and back-biting that goes on between you and Mary is *really* tedious.  It is also, in my pathetic estimation, really beneath the two of you, who both appear to possess excellent minds and treasure-troves of knowledge and information.  Talk about "bitter taste"!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #468 on: April 20, 2012, 12:06:29 PM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.

God bless you for having the courage to say so in the face of the avalanche of pseudo-wisdom-pseudo-knowledge that is the core of this and every other thread on the subject that highlights the personal opinions of al Misry and which distort the most fundamental of truths.
Sic Maria ex cathedra dixit.+April 19, 2012

Now he only has to substantiate it.

Fact is that in a real junk pile there's nothing to pick but junk.

Question is whether or not it is worth his time to pick...
treading sour grapes into whine I see.  Not worth anyone's time picking through those dregs.  Nor this froth, all fluff and no substance.  Just bitter taste.



With great hesitation I would say.....

Sheeesh!  The continued sniping and back-biting that goes on between you and Mary is *really* tedious.  It is also, in my pathetic estimation, really beneath the two of you, who both appear to possess excellent minds and treasure-troves of knowledge and information.  Talk about "bitter taste"!
I just wish Mary wouldn't bury her treasure.
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
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #469 on: April 20, 2012, 12:12:13 PM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.

God bless you for having the courage to say so in the face of the avalanche of pseudo-wisdom-pseudo-knowledge that is the core of this and every other thread on the subject that highlights the personal opinions of al Misry and which distort the most fundamental of truths.
Sic Maria ex cathedra dixit.+April 19, 2012

Now he only has to substantiate it.

Fact is that in a real junk pile there's nothing to pick but junk.

Question is whether or not it is worth his time to pick...
treading sour grapes into whine I see.  Not worth anyone's time picking through those dregs.  Nor this froth, all fluff and no substance.  Just bitter taste.



With great hesitation I would say.....

Sheeesh!  The continued sniping and back-biting that goes on between you and Mary is *really* tedious.  It is also, in my pathetic estimation, really beneath the two of you, who both appear to possess excellent minds and treasure-troves of knowledge and information.  Talk about "bitter taste"!
I just wish Mary wouldn't bury her treasure.

Enough, already!  Please....!!! 

Let Mary and her spiritual father work out what to do or not to do with her treasure, and perhaps concentrate on your own.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #470 on: April 20, 2012, 04:15:52 PM »

Once, I went to a clairvoyant priest for confession. No joke. I had no idea he had this spiritual gift. He says to me, "You get into foolish arguments on the internet."
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #471 on: April 20, 2012, 04:25:06 PM »

Once, I went to a clairvoyant priest for confession. No joke. I had no idea he had this spiritual gift. He says to me, "You get into foolish arguments on the internet."

Excellent!

Were you absolved  Grin Wink?

Sometimes I think foolish arguments are the only kind that happen on the internet.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #472 on: April 20, 2012, 06:43:30 PM »

Look.  This entire monologue by al Misry is set up to bamboozle, not discuss.  Reams of quotes and pithy comments, which are as the latest brave poster noted not at all connected to anything remotely resembling Catholic understanding of natural law, are not at all open to any kind of clarifying discussion.   That kind of thing is simply shut off by a strategy of "Blah blah blah...I win!!"

Nobody has the skills or the time to sort through the nonsense to try and make the crooked path straight.  Who would want to spend the time?...Some have tried.  But all they get in return is "Blah blah blah....I win!!"

The sad thing is that them what don't know no better think it is amazing and brilliant and insightful.

Short of saying "Catholic teaching on natural law is bunko!" I doubt they could construct a full paragraph describing what has been said in hundreds of pages on this thread.

So now and then I come in and say "Tripe"

That is hardly an argument  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 06:43:54 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #473 on: April 20, 2012, 07:10:06 PM »

Once, I went to a clairvoyant priest for confession. No joke. I had no idea he had this spiritual gift. He says to me, "You get into foolish arguments on the internet."

Before I moved, a priest at a GOA parish told me about getting confession from a clairvoyant monk on Mt. Athos.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,267


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #474 on: April 20, 2012, 11:05:39 PM »

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception
I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).
I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."

However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:
His Emminence Met. Kallistos wrote the excellent but subsequently corrected (on numerous points) 1963 edition of The Orthodox Church while still a laymen (albeit a very intelligent and academically competent/credentialed one) of 29 years of age; he was chrismated into the Orthodox Church 5 years earlier at age 24.

You might consider the need to demonstrate rather than simply assume that changes in this book reflect changes in the Orthodox Church per se rather than corrections to the book which might well have a completely different explanation. For all we know Met. Kallistos may have simply realized subsequently that he had gotten some points a tad wrong in the first edition.

On another note, even acknowledging that Orthodox writers have changed some of what has been said regarding contraception it is another question why what has been said might have changed or advanced, e.g. whether as alleged by some Roman Catholic apologists being due to some fundamental alteration of the faith (which I personally see no evidence of) or e.g. with increased understandings of the biology of various forms of contraception with the development of the physical sciences, e.g.

"Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health." http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

But outmoded Aristotelian philosophy isn't dogma in Orthodox quarters, and isn't generally regarded as credible by professional philosophers today, Christian or otherwise, outside the halls of Roman Catholic institutions. It seems to me this is due to the late elevation of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas to the official level in the 19th century in Roman Catholicism rather than to some alleged logical or intellectual necessity of properly illumined philosophical intellect as many Roman Catholics are wont to suppose (in accordance with late (later than the Protestant Reformation in this case) RC dogmatic necessities unknown to the Undivided Church before the schism).




You don't have to accept all of aristotle's particular scientific views to accept his common sense realism.
"Foundationalism has been the reigning theory of theories in the West since the high Middle Ages. It can be traced back as far as Aristotle... Aquinas offers one classic version of foundationalism. There is, he said, a body of propositions which can become self-evident to us in our present earthly state. Properly conducted scientific inquiry consists in arriving at other propositions by way of reliable inference from these (demonstration). A few of these (for example, that God exists) can be inferred from propositions knowable to the natural light of reason.

...within the community of those working in philosophy of knowledge and philosophy of science foundationalism has suffered a series of deadly blows in the last 25 years. To many of those acquainted with the history of this development it now looks all but dead. So it looks to me. Of course, it is always possible that by a feat of prodigious imagination foundationalism can be revitalized. I consider that highly improbable..." (Nicholas Wolterstorff, Reason Within the Bounds of Religion, pp. 26-27).

Catholic theologian Charles Curran claims "the concept of natural law as a deductive methodology based on eternal and immutable essences and resulting in specific absolute norms is no longer acceptable to the majority of Catholic moral theologians writing today" (Curran, Charles, "Catholic Moral Theology Today" in New Perpectives in Moral Theology, ed., Charles Curran (Notre Dame: UNDP, 1982), p. 6).

Natural law theories and their content are culturally conditioned. "...every attempt to spell out the intellectual content of natural law can be shown to be historically and culturally conditioned. While all people seem to have a moral sense, when they begin articulating what this means, their own cultural and religious background proves to be determinative in their judgments. We need to take seriously this telling criticism of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: 'Is there such a thing as a natural law in the sense that we all 'naturally' reject murder, lies, deceit, wanton cruelty, adulterary, theft, or contempt of parents? As a world traveler and student of ethnology I deny this in the face of certain Christian theological tradition " Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, "Jews, Christians, and Gentiles," National Review 35, no. 20 (Oct. 14, 1983), p. 1282).

St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.
Quoting Romans 2 as if it is decisive for the dogma inspired Roman Catholic variations of Natural Theology is hardly telling. Although scholarship and exegesis hardly decide this matter it is well to remind ourselves of the peculiar fact that those who see the Pauline texts teaching "natural law" as the Roman Catholics understand it are *almost entirely* Roman Catholics.

Pascal famously argued that the heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of. These laws written upon the heart Paul spoke of may be congruent to reason (e.g. one might describe them), but it is not self-evident they are *arrived at by reason*  much less "through reason alone" in the sense described by Thomas Aquinas, the Vatican Insider[1] et al (cf. the Natural Law trajectory in philosophy from the Stoics, Aristotle, Aquinas, Roman Catholicism, Neo-Thomists, etc.)

There is plenty of doubt in the world of contemporary academic exegetes whether "the law written upon the heart" is in fact discursive syllogistic reasoning from things like presumed essences and purposes of things under the influence of Thomas Aquinas's usage of the pagan philosopher Aristotle and the like OR the whole maze of philosophical paradigms of natural law which have developed since then. The Reformers rejected Latin Catholic Natural Law Theory as being what Paul was speaking of in favor of a form of general revelation upon the conscience. Aquinas spoke of reason as something which would be on many points in agreement with revelation, but which was not in any way dependent upon revelation for firm conclusions about natural law or natural theology. Similarly Aquinas and the Roman Catholic Church affirm the existence of God may be proved by reason alone (natural theology), which to many has seemed at odds with the scriptural teaching about a living God who may hide and reveal himself dynamically to human hearts in relation to their response to Him (this doesn't negate something like "pointers" or "warrant" which Bishop Kallistos Ware favors over proof of God by logic in a manner like one does geometry, which he rejects (The Orthodox Way, ch 1). For Aquinas, the existence of God (natural theology) and natural law can be established by reason alone apart from revelation. The Reformers cited the biblical emphasis that such general revelation could become darkened in a flash by sinfulness (Romans 1), which doesn't sound like something a philosophical conclusion arrived at by logical syllogism is easily susceptible to. Similarly, as cited earlier, "two contemporary Orthodox theologians—Fr Alexander Schmemann and Vladimir Lossky—seem to reject the idea that natural law has any application in Christian theology since (following ironically enough, an argument which St Augustine, that paragon of Western theology, would have embraced) what is “natural” for human is our state before Adam’s transgression. Now what we know about humanity is profoundly unnatural" (Father Gregory R. Jensen).

Knowing Good" according to Aquinas is an aspect of our created nature in God's image. Aquinas, baptized in the waters of Aristotle, supposed and that the image of God allowed Infallible Knowledge of the Good.

Bonhoeffer argued this was the devil's first lie.
In the Edenic narrative eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. Whether we are speaking of knowledge of the good, or knowledge of evil, the creation narrative describes this as part of our fallen nature, not our created nature, something which was explicitly forbidden to us in Eden, and was in fact hubris (cf. Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall). We were not, according to Genesis, created with Knowledge of Good. That existed only in the tree in the center of the Garden. Truth derived from the Presence of God, not from the fallible logic of finite, contingent creatures, because He is Truth. Truth is a Person: Jesus Christ. He writes His laws upon the heart not because after the fall Knowledge of Good/Knowledge of Evil was now a delectable, nutiritious, and healthy adjunct to the Tree of Life, but because He is in our very being, drawing us, such that if anything we do is good it was itself wrought in God (Jn 3:19-21), "for in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). We do not think God's infallible thoughts after Him so that our logic may be presumed the epistemological equivalent to His logic: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).

What is at issue with those of us who are not Roman Catholics is not whether God imprints our conscience providentially, but one of *epistemological method* viz. Aquinas's claims about HOW this is presumed knowable via a philosophical process apart from faith which have been baptized as dogma in the Roman Catholic trajectory.

Many papal/ teachings assert X, Y, Z is a matter of moral law perceptible to natural reason apart from faith. This is originates from Aristotle, is taken up by Aquinas, and baptized by the Magisterium.

This becomes intellectually embarrassing when a particular papal claims "X, Y, Z is clear via natural reason isn't clear to anyone EXCEPT Roman Catholics following some papal statement.

A thing "perceptible apart from faith" yet actually "perceived" only by persons of Roman Catholic faith is at least moderately suspicious.

A thing "perceptible apart from faith" yet not perceived by any Jews, Protestants is at least moderately suspicious.

When a thing "perceptible to reason apart from faith" -like Magisterial teaching about how contraception is contra-indicated by natural law- is also rejected as obvious from natural reason by a majority of practicing Roman Catholics themselves to boot moderate suspicion is approaching critical mass.
________________
[1]"In a pluralistic society, the Catholic Church is convinced that it is duty bound 'to intervene in favor of the values that are valid for man as such, independently of the various cultures' - values the Church knows 'through its faith' but at which all men can arrive through reason alone, regardless of faith." -Vatican Insider http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/benedetto-xvi-benedict-xvi-benedicto-xvi-9725/


« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 11:36:41 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #475 on: April 21, 2012, 10:03:30 AM »



Catholic theologian Charles Curran claims "the concept of natural law as a deductive methodology based on eternal and immutable essences and resulting in specific absolute norms is no longer acceptable to the majority of Catholic moral theologians writing today" (Curran, Charles, "Catholic Moral Theology Today" in New Perpectives in Moral Theology, ed., Charles Curran (Notre Dame: UNDP, 1982), p. 6).


Curran and others like him argue against any law they do not like based upon the premise that the law does not hold.  No wonder the Decalogue has become the Ten Suggestions and lex orandi went out the window.  We have had for some long time now a modernist tendency toward a crisis of authority in the Catholic Church.  Everyone wants to be THE authority.

You and other Orthodox go to the very dissenters in the Church that you would, otherwise, rub our noses in with pictures of clown masses.

I find this to be a regular Orthodox strategy.  I don't know if the thinking in Orthodoxy is really that bad or if it is just a "win at all costs" strategy.

M.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 10:04:55 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,728


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #476 on: April 21, 2012, 11:17:31 AM »

Curran isn't exactly in good standing with the RCC. He was declared unfit to teach Catholic theology and now teaches at a Methodist university.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curran_%28theologian%29

 Roll Eyes
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #477 on: April 21, 2012, 11:46:22 AM »

Curran isn't exactly in good standing with the RCC. He was declared unfit to teach Catholic theology and now teaches at a Methodist university.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curran_%28theologian%29

 Roll Eyes

The real key is that al Misry under-girds ALL of this discussion, the entire thing, on the first premise that in order for a law to be a law it must hold in all cases.  He makes that presumption about fallen human behavior and the laws of God.  If fallen man does not follow the law then the law is flawed.  He would NEVER dare do that within Orthodoxy or he'd have to subscribe to the Ten Suggestions and the Law of God would be a matter solely of Advise and Consent.  So with or without his distortions of Catholic teaching, he has already begun his long trek to nowhere beginning with a false premise.

Of course I have heard Orthodox believers argue this way about things they do not want to follow in Orthodoxy...as well as Catholics who do the same thing of course.

But that is the foundation for nearly all dissent against any authority that is rejected as an absolute authority.

M.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,267


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #478 on: April 21, 2012, 11:56:25 AM »


Quote from: elijahmaria
Curran and others like him argue against any law they do not like based upon the premise that the law does not hold.  No wonder the Decalogue has become the Ten Suggestions and lex orandi went out the window.  We have had for some long time now a modernist tendency toward a crisis of authority in the Catholic Church.  Everyone wants to be THE authority.

You and other Orthodox go to the very dissenters in the Church that you would, otherwise, rub our noses in with pictures of clown masses.

I find this to be a regular Orthodox strategy.  I don't know if the thinking in Orthodoxy is really that bad or if it is just a "win at all costs" strategy.

M.
That is irrelevant because the fact he is quoted on is not a dissenting opinion. We notice that you didn't dispute it. You've now addressed .01% of my post, none of which depends on him in particular.

Logical fallacy 101 alert:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Your complaint reduces to this: "only cite people who agree with me, or I will complain that you have cited someone who doesn't agree with me" (even if I don't say I disagree with the particular fact they mentioned).


Quote
You don't have to accept all of aristotle's particular scientific views to accept his common sense realism.
"Foundationalism has been the reigning theory of theories in the West since the high Middle Ages. It can be traced back as far as Aristotle... Aquinas offers one classic version of foundationalism. There is, he said, a body of propositions which can become self-evident to us in our present earthly state. Properly conducted scientific inquiry consists in arriving at other propositions by way of reliable inference from these (demonstration). A few of these (for example, that God exists) can be inferred from propositions knowable to the natural light of reason.

...within the community of those working in philosophy of knowledge and philosophy of science foundationalism has suffered a series of deadly blows in the last 25 years. To many of those acquainted with the history of this development it now looks all but dead. So it looks to me. Of course, it is always possible that by a feat of prodigious imagination foundationalism can be revitalized. I consider that highly improbable..." (Nicholas Wolterstorff, Reason Within the Bounds of Religion, pp. 26-27).

Catholic theologian Charles Curran claims "the concept of natural law as a deductive methodology based on eternal and immutable essences and resulting in specific absolute norms is no longer acceptable to the majority of Catholic moral theologians writing today" (Curran, Charles, "Catholic Moral Theology Today" in New Perpectives in Moral Theology, ed., Charles Curran (Notre Dame: UNDP, 1982), p. 6).

Natural law theories and their content are culturally conditioned. "...every attempt to spell out the intellectual content of natural law can be shown to be historically and culturally conditioned. While all people seem to have a moral sense, when they begin articulating what this means, their own cultural and religious background proves to be determinative in their judgments. We need to take seriously this telling criticism of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: 'Is there such a thing as a natural law in the sense that we all 'naturally' reject murder, lies, deceit, wanton cruelty, adulterary, theft, or contempt of parents? As a world traveler and student of ethnology I deny this in the face of certain Christian theological tradition " Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, "Jews, Christians, and Gentiles," National Review 35, no. 20 (Oct. 14, 1983), p. 1282).

St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.
Quoting Romans 2 as if it is decisive for the dogma inspired Roman Catholic variations of Natural Theology is hardly telling. Although scholarship and exegesis hardly decide this matter it is well to remind ourselves of the peculiar fact that those who see the Pauline texts teaching "natural law" as the Roman Catholics understand it are *almost entirely* Roman Catholics.

Pascal famously argued that the heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of. These laws written upon the heart Paul spoke of may be congruent to reason (e.g. one might describe them), but it is not self-evident they are *arrived at by reason*  much less "through reason alone" in the sense described by Thomas Aquinas, the Vatican Insider[1] et al (cf. the Natural Law trajectory in philosophy from the Stoics, Aristotle, Aquinas, Roman Catholicism, Neo-Thomists, etc.)

There is plenty of doubt in the world of contemporary academic exegetes whether "the law written upon the heart" is in fact discursive syllogistic reasoning from things like presumed essences and purposes of things under the influence of Thomas Aquinas's usage of the pagan philosopher Aristotle and the like OR the whole maze of philosophical paradigms of natural law which have developed since then. The Reformers rejected Latin Catholic Natural Law Theory as being what Paul was speaking of in favor of a form of general revelation upon the conscience. Aquinas spoke of reason as something which would be on many points in agreement with revelation, but which was not in any way dependent upon revelation for firm conclusions about natural law or natural theology. Similarly Aquinas and the Roman Catholic Church affirm the existence of God may be proved by reason alone (natural theology), which to many has seemed at odds with the scriptural teaching about a living God who may hide and reveal himself dynamically to human hearts in relation to their response to Him (this doesn't negate something like "pointers" or "warrant" which Bishop Kallistos Ware favors over proof of God by logic in a manner like one does geometry, which he rejects (The Orthodox Way, ch 1). For Aquinas, the existence of God (natural theology) and natural law can be established by reason alone apart from revelation. The Reformers cited the biblical emphasis that such general revelation could become darkened in a flash by sinfulness (Romans 1), which doesn't sound like something a philosophical conclusion arrived at by logical syllogism is easily susceptible to. Similarly, as cited earlier, "two contemporary Orthodox theologians—Fr Alexander Schmemann and Vladimir Lossky—seem to reject the idea that natural law has any application in Christian theology since (following ironically enough, an argument which St Augustine, that paragon of Western theology, would have embraced) what is “natural” for human is our state before Adam’s transgression. Now what we know about humanity is profoundly unnatural" (Father Gregory R. Jensen).

Knowing Good" according to Aquinas is an aspect of our created nature in God's image. Aquinas, baptized in the waters of Aristotle, supposed and that the image of God allowed Infallible Knowledge of the Good.

Bonhoeffer argued this was the devil's first lie.
In the Edenic narrative eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. Whether we are speaking of knowledge of the good, or knowledge of evil, the creation narrative describes this as part of our fallen nature, not our created nature, something which was explicitly forbidden to us in Eden, and was in fact hubris (cf. Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall). We were not, according to Genesis, created with Knowledge of Good. That existed only in the tree in the center of the Garden. Truth derived from the Presence of God, not from the fallible logic of finite, contingent creatures, because He is Truth. Truth is a Person: Jesus Christ. He writes His laws upon the heart not because after the fall Knowledge of Good/Knowledge of Evil was now a delectable, nutiritious, and healthy adjunct to the Tree of Life, but because He is in our very being, drawing us, such that if anything we do is good it was itself wrought in God (Jn 3:19-21), "for in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). We do not think God's infallible thoughts after Him so that our logic may be presumed the epistemological equivalent to His logic: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).

What is at issue with those of us who are not Roman Catholics is not whether God imprints our conscience providentially, but one of *epistemological method* viz. Aquinas's claims about HOW this is presumed knowable via a philosophical process apart from faith which have been baptized as dogma in the Roman Catholic trajectory.

Many papal/ teachings assert X, Y, Z is a matter of moral law perceptible to natural reason apart from faith. This is originates from Aristotle, is taken up by Aquinas, and baptized by the Magisterium.

This becomes intellectually embarrassing when a particular papal claims "X, Y, Z is clear via natural reason isn't clear to anyone EXCEPT Roman Catholics following some papal statement.

A thing "perceptible apart from faith" yet actually "perceived" only by persons of Roman Catholic faith is at least moderately suspicious.

A thing "perceptible apart from faith" yet not perceived by any Jews, Protestants is at least moderately suspicious.

When a thing "perceptible to reason apart from faith" -like Magisterial teaching about how contraception is contra-indicated by natural law- is also rejected as obvious from natural reason by a majority of practicing Roman Catholics themselves to boot moderate suspicion is approaching critical mass.
________________
[1]"In a pluralistic society, the Catholic Church is convinced that it is duty bound 'to intervene in favor of the values that are valid for man as such, independently of the various cultures' - values the Church knows 'through its faith' but at which all men can arrive through reason alone, regardless of faith." -Vatican Insider http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/benedetto-xvi-benedict-xvi-benedicto-xvi-9725/




« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 12:08:56 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #479 on: April 21, 2012, 12:17:14 PM »


Quote from: elijahmaria
Curran and others like him argue against any law they do not like based upon the premise that the law does not hold.  No wonder the Decalogue has become the Ten Suggestions and lex orandi went out the window.  We have had for some long time now a modernist tendency toward a crisis of authority in the Catholic Church.  Everyone wants to be THE authority.

You and other Orthodox go to the very dissenters in the Church that you would, otherwise, rub our noses in with pictures of clown masses.

I find this to be a regular Orthodox strategy.  I don't know if the thinking in Orthodoxy is really that bad or if it is just a "win at all costs" strategy.

M.
That is irrelevant because the fact he is quoted on is not a dissenting opinion. We notice that you didn't dispute it. You've now addressed .01% of my post, none of which depends on him in particular.


 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

right...have fun!!

Logged

JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #480 on: April 21, 2012, 02:32:37 PM »

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception
I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).
I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."

However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:
His Emminence Met. Kallistos wrote the excellent but subsequently corrected (on numerous points) 1963 edition of The Orthodox Church while still a laymen (albeit a very intelligent and academically competent/credentialed one) of 29 years of age; he was chrismated into the Orthodox Church 5 years earlier at age 24.

You might consider the need to demonstrate rather than simply assume that changes in this book reflect changes in the Orthodox Church per se rather than corrections to the book which might well have a completely different explanation. For all we know Met. Kallistos may have simply realized subsequently that he had gotten some points a tad wrong in the first edition.

On another note, even acknowledging that Orthodox writers have changed some of what has been said regarding contraception it is another question why what has been said might have changed or advanced, e.g. whether as alleged by some Roman Catholic apologists being due to some fundamental alteration of the faith (which I personally see no evidence of) or e.g. with increased understandings of the biology of various forms of contraception with the development of the physical sciences, e.g.

"Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health." http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

But outmoded Aristotelian philosophy isn't dogma in Orthodox quarters, and isn't generally regarded as credible by professional philosophers today, Christian or otherwise, outside the halls of Roman Catholic institutions. It seems to me this is due to the late elevation of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas to the official level in the 19th century in Roman Catholicism rather than to some alleged logical or intellectual necessity of properly illumined philosophical intellect as many Roman Catholics are wont to suppose (in accordance with late (later than the Protestant Reformation in this case) RC dogmatic necessities unknown to the Undivided Church before the schism).





I suppose Plato is better; his name is nearly a homophone for a child's modeling compound.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #481 on: April 21, 2012, 02:37:41 PM »

Look.  This entire monologue by al Misry is set up to bamboozle, not discuss.  Reams of quotes and pithy comments, which are as the latest brave poster noted not at all connected to anything remotely resembling Catholic understanding of natural law, are not at all open to any kind of clarifying discussion.   That kind of thing is simply shut off by a strategy of "Blah blah blah...I win!!"

Nobody has the skills or the time to sort through the nonsense to try and make the crooked path straight.  Who would want to spend the time?...Some have tried.  But all they get in return is "Blah blah blah....I win!!"

The sad thing is that them what don't know no better think it is amazing and brilliant and insightful.

Short of saying "Catholic teaching on natural law is bunko!" I doubt they could construct a full paragraph describing what has been said in hundreds of pages on this thread.

So now and then I come in and say "Tripe"

That is hardly an argument  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
You would be more convincing if the criteria of "not knowing better" were more than disagreement with you.  In particular if you could offer more than bare assetions.  If you used the time wasted in coming in and saying "Tripe" instead in finding some evidence, if it exists, then you would have something to argue.

You magisterium makes claims for its natural law theory that it cannot back up, and which fail on inspection.  Btw, if the Decalogue has become the Ten Suggestions and lex orandi went out the window, it is only because your Vatican threw the baby out and kept the bath water at Vatican II.  Doesn't inspire confidence in that "magisterium" you vaunt.

I took a look through Lambe on the phrase "logos spermatikos."  It doesn't seem it is going to say your natural law theory for you.  The earliest reference is St. Justin Martyr who identifies it with Christ.  Such has more in common with SS. Maximos and Palamas than with Gratian and Aquinas.   IOW, it is "not at all connected to anything remotely resembling [the Vatican's] understanding of natural law"

If you don't have the skills to prove you dispute, then just move on.  Silently.

Btw, on monlogue:I am not the OP of this thread.  I only entered at the end of the first page, and none of the following pages are only my work.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 02:50:55 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
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,267


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #482 on: April 21, 2012, 04:13:05 PM »

I suppose Plato is better; his name is nearly a homophone for a child's modeling compound.
"Plato is not more Christian than Aristotle..." (Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 42; cf. Lossky chapters 2-3 for further details). Your reply to my post relates to nothing I have said or believe.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 04:22:47 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #483 on: April 21, 2012, 04:17:38 PM »

Once, I went to a clairvoyant priest for confession. No joke. I had no idea he had this spiritual gift. He says to me, "You get into foolish arguments on the internet."

Before I moved, a priest at a GOA parish told me about getting confession from a clairvoyant monk on Mt. Athos.

I don't want to digress too much, but it was an amazing experience. Also fearful. It shows you God cares about things (like getting into frivolous arguments on the internet) to be matters more grave than you would think, judging from the fact that it was one of the things the priest wanted to rebuke me about, while he just seemed to skip over some of my more "serious" seeming sins.

(Which is why I try not to come to these forums too much anymore. Arguing over trifling matters with people who have nothing better to do doesn't help me or anyone else.)
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 04:20:01 PM by samkim » Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #484 on: April 21, 2012, 04:18:42 PM »

Look.  This entire monologue by al Misry is set up to bamboozle, not discuss.  Reams of quotes and pithy comments, which are as the latest brave poster noted not at all connected to anything remotely resembling Catholic understanding of natural law, are not at all open to any kind of clarifying discussion.   That kind of thing is simply shut off by a strategy of "Blah blah blah...I win!!"

Nobody has the skills or the time to sort through the nonsense to try and make the crooked path straight.  Who would want to spend the time?...Some have tried.  But all they get in return is "Blah blah blah....I win!!"

The sad thing is that them what don't know no better think it is amazing and brilliant and insightful.

Short of saying "Catholic teaching on natural law is bunko!" I doubt they could construct a full paragraph describing what has been said in hundreds of pages on this thread.

So now and then I come in and say "Tripe"

That is hardly an argument  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
You would be more convincing if the criteria of "not knowing better" were more than disagreement with you.  

 Huh Huh Huh Roll Eyes
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #485 on: April 22, 2012, 02:01:49 AM »

Quote
Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (See Pius XII, Address to 26th Congress of Italian Association of Urology: AAS 45 (1953), 674-675; to Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395]. )

The "reasoning," shown in the footnotes sources, comes purely from natural law theory.
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #486 on: April 22, 2012, 02:16:47 AM »

Quote
Recourse to Infertile Periods

16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (See Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 846)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
Again, purely based on natural law theory, all the more odd that it directly contradicts the patristics/tradition often invoked in support of HV, a fact Noonan noted IIRC.
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #487 on: April 29, 2012, 11:10:44 PM »

To continue....
Well, let's see what Pope Paul of Rome (or Card. Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II of Rome, co-author of the adopted Minority Report of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control) means by "divine law," the revealed or the natural.

Going through and putting in red that teaching on marriage/child-bearing/rearing which the Vatican based (or attempted to base) on Revelation, general appeals to authority based on revelation (but not on point on married life) in blue, and in bold those pronouncements based on Natural Law.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Quote
LATIN TEXT: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 60 (1968), 481-503.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: The Pope Speaks, 13 (Fall. 1969), 329-46.
Quote
Consequences of Artificial Methods

17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
It seems that regarding a woman as nothing but a baby machine does not upset the Vatican's "moral law."
Quote

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
It would seem no harm is seen in natalism, or the Decreţei of Ceaucescu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decre%C5%A3ei

Quote
Limits to Man's Power

Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the "principle of totality" enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII. (See Pius XII, Address to Association of Urology: AAS 45 (1953), 674-675; to leaders and members of Italian Association of Cornea Donors and Italian Association for the Blind: AAS 48 (1956), 461-462 [TPS III, 200-201].)

Concern of the Church

18. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication.
But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction." (Lk 2. 34) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.

In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way she defends the dignity of husband and wife.
This course of action shows that the Church, loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during this earthly pilgrimage "to share God's life as sons of the living God, the Father of all men." (See Paul Vl, encyc. letter Populorum progressio: AAS 59 (1967), 268 [TPS XII, 151].)
The last reference ends a argument from a general philosophical viewpoint, after which, not alluded to here, it does go on to an argument from Scripture.

One note should be added about the alleged prophecy of HV.  It was issued nearly a decade after the pill had come out, decades after condemns had been mass distributed through the armies, decades after the modern condemns first appearance.  Mass genetics and sterilization programs had happened decades earlier.  The natalist policies of Ceaucescu's Romania, so in line with the thinking behind HV, were already in place for years.  To be prophetic, one has to talk about what will happen, not what has happened.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2012, 11:37:08 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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #488 on: April 30, 2012, 10:15:15 AM »

Orthodoxy and the Vatican would have a problem in common with this comment (the very end), disturbing yet true.  But perhaps disturbing because it is true, when consequences don't always reach their logical end.
Quote
What worries me is the fixation on rewards and pleasure encouraged by such abstinence programs. Why would we expect those teenagers to ever view marital sex as anything more than a fun activity if they’ve spent years investing themselves in that view?
 
Not to mention that such an approach doesn’t really work too well for its own purpose. To paraphrase a demotivational poster, “Abstinence sometimes pays off later, but fornication always pays off now.”
http://touchstonemag.com/merecomments/2006/08/evangelicals_an/
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #489 on: April 30, 2012, 07:29:49 PM »

Everytime I see Izzy post on this thread, I just see some one screaming and shaking their fists. I don't know why. But this is what I always see in my mind.


See my p.m. to you.
Secrets?

No.  Paranoid?
Its not paranoia if they are against you.
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #490 on: April 30, 2012, 07:45:14 PM »

Quote
III.
PASTORAL DIRECTIVES

19. Our words would not be an adequate expression of the thought and solicitude of the Church, Mother and Teacher of all peoples, if, after having recalled men to the observance and respect of the divine law regarding matrimony, they did not also support mankind in the honest regulation of birth amid the difficult conditions which today afflict families and peoples. The Church, in fact, cannot act differently toward men than did the Redeemer. She knows their weaknesses, she has compassion on the multitude, she welcomes sinners. But at the same time she cannot do otherwise than teach the law. For it is in fact the law of human life
restored to its native truth and guided by the Spirit of God.  (See Rom 8) Observing the Divine Law.

20. The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself. And yet there is no doubt that to many it will appear not merely difficult but even impossible to observe. Now it is true that like all good things which are outstanding for their nobility and for the benefits which they confer on men, so this law demands from individual men and women, from families and from human society, a resolute purpose and great endurance. Indeed it cannot be observed unless God comes to their help with the grace by which the goodwill of men is sustained and strengthened. But to those who consider this matter diligently it will indeed be evident that this endurance enhances man's dignity and confers benefits on human society.
It is interesting how the "law" based on an appeal to reason, is stated to be fulfilled only by an appeal to Faith.
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #491 on: May 02, 2012, 02:43:52 AM »

Just stumbled on this, on "form":
Quote
“This is a debate about ends and means which is in fact a loser for the contraception-user.”
Not if certain cardinals have their way regarding HIV, according to rumors. Might this be changing?
re “form”: Why and how is form all of a sudden so important with regards to marital love? because marital love is so important and so great? aren’t lots of things important and great and transcendent, like, say, breastfeeding? is formula feeding deforming of the act of maternal love? and if you don’t konw the answer, isn’t it curious that church fathers (note no caps! no caps!) haven’t hashed out this particular question while they have hashed out others?
http://blog.beliefnet.com/viamedia/2006/04/contraception-debate.html
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #492 on: May 03, 2012, 03:03:00 AM »

I just had a random thought on the Vatican's prooftext (besides Cicero) for "natural law"

Romans 2:14 ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῇ, οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσι νόμος, οἵτινες ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως καὶ μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισμῶν κατηγορούντων ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων,

When indeed Gentiles who have not the Law by nature/origin the things of the Law do, these not having [the] Law, unto themselves are a law, who demonstrate the work[ing] of the law written in their hearts, their bearing witness of the conscience and between each other the thoughts accusing or also defending.

To give the context Romans
Quote
2:1Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.  2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?  4 Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?  5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.  6 For he will render to every man according to his works:  7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;  8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.  9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,  10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.  11 For God shows no partiality.  12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.  13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.  14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.  15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them  16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.  17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God  18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed in the law,  19 and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,  20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--  21 you then who teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal?  22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?   2:23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?  24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."  25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.  26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?  27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised (καὶ κρινεῖ ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία "and will judge the from nature/origin uncircumcized") but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.  28 For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical.  29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.

The problem is that the CCC makes what is contrasted here nonsense:
Quote
The Decalogue ant the natural law

2070 The Ten Commandments belong to God's revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity

of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent

in the nature of the human person. the Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law:

From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue.31

2071 The commandments of the Decalogue, although accessible to reason alone, have been revealed. To

attain a complete and certain understanding of the requirements of the natural law, sinful humanity needed

this revelation:

A full explanation of the commandments of the Decalogue became necessary in the state of sin because the light of reason was obscured and the will had gone astray.32

We know God's commandments through the

divine revelation proposed to us in the Church, and through the voice of moral conscience. the obligation

of the Decalogue

2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten

Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable,

and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. the Ten Commandments are

engraved by God in the human heart.

2073 Obedience to the Commandments also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light. Thus

abusive language is forbidden by the fifth commandment, but would be a grave offense only as a result of

circumstances or the offender's intention. "Apart from me you can do nothing"

2074 Jesus says: "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears

much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing."33 The fruit referred to in this saying is the holiness of

a life made fruitful by union with Christ. When we believe in Jesus Christ, partake of his mysteries, and keep

his commandments, the Savior himself comes to love, in us, his Father and his brethren, our Father and our

brethren. His person becomes, through the Spirit, the living and interior rule of our activity. "This is my

commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."

Greek contrasted nomos "law" and physis "nature," a contrast between custom or positive (legislated) law which each polis produced and that which was found everywhere.  Here St. Paul is contrasted revelation and gentile law, NOT between revelation and a "divine law." To presume to confuse the latter renders St. Paul's words as senseless. To update it, St. Paul today would be contrasting the halakhah (Jewish Law) and the secular Civil Code of most of Europe or the Common Law of the British Commonwealth or the United States Code.  NOT between the halakhah and canon law/the summar theologica.

So what is a text about being judged according to the state of the knowlege of the gentiles as to morality, has been taken as a declaration that the gentiles have a knowledge of natural morality.  Not exactly the same 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #493 on: May 07, 2012, 01:11:06 PM »

Quote
ἢ οὐδὲ αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις διδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ, ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστι
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him.

Maybe, but the Church teaches otherwise.
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #494 on: May 16, 2012, 04:41:41 PM »

As someone who studies philosophy academically, that is a grotesque caricature of natural law and also of the position of the Roman church regarding it.

Our holy fathers speak of the Logos and the Logos Spermatikos. St. Paul speaks about the law written on our hearts. This is what natural law theory is getting at.

God bless you for having the courage to say so in the face of the avalanche of pseudo-wisdom-pseudo-knowledge that is the core of this and every other thread on the subject that highlights the personal opinions of al Misry and which distort the most fundamental of truths.
Sic Maria ex cathedra dixit.+April 19, 2012

Now he only has to substantiate it.

Fact is that in a real junk pile there's nothing to pick but junk.

Question is whether or not it is worth his time to pick...

M.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37983.msg736523.html#msg736523
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
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 0.232 seconds with 72 queries.