OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 03, 2014, 01:34:54 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Contraception & Natural Law  (Read 40416 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #225 on: December 07, 2010, 10:53:00 PM »

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting.

I agree completely with using a third party's sperm or egg as immoral, but I had never considered a rent-a-womb  Cheesy as being immoral.
Logged


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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #226 on: December 07, 2010, 10:57:27 PM »

http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=19

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

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


Much of the reasoning used here would make adoption impossible.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #227 on: December 07, 2010, 11:27:46 PM »

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic except for possible use of condoms for the right reason.
Logged


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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #228 on: December 07, 2010, 11:35:55 PM »

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

talk to St. Clement, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and the others caught in that quote mine which goes the rounds to support the Vatican's HV.

Quote
ABC violates natural law

The Orthoox moral theology of Christ's Church comes from His Gospel, not natural theology.

Quote
because it purposely frustrates the normal functioning of the human body with regard to reproduction.

And what if it does not succeed?

Then there is withrawal.

Quote
NFP does no such thing.

Action theory, another obsession of the Vatican, picked up by Aquinas.

Quote
There are supposed to be only certain days during the month when woman has a substantial probability of getting pregnant.

And, acordoing to the consensus of those fathers the HV quote mines cite, that is the ONLY time you should engage in intercourse.

Quote
There are supposed to be days when that probability is extremely low. This is written into the nature of the female body.

and forms the basis of the chemistry of the contraceeptive pill. Btw the probability when she is already pregnant is practically if not nill.

Quote
This is a real and substantial difference.
That is a distinction without a difference.

Quote
And that real difference leads to practical results in the building of virtue. One method (NFP) teaches a person self control,

I wasn't aware "NFP" inclued coitus interruptus, which entails LOTS of self control.

Quote
the other (ABC) teaches a person to satisfy his or her passions on demand.
As Fatehr has pointed out, as long as they are willing to risk pregnancy, they can satisfy their passions 24/7 on demand.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #229 on: December 07, 2010, 11:43:26 PM »

Quote
because it purposely frustrates the normal functioning of the human body with regard to reproduction.

And what if it does not succeed?

Then there is withrawal.


Even Orthodox see withdrawal as an over-indulgence of the flesh.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #230 on: December 07, 2010, 11:47:48 PM »

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

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

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



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

M.
That is the problem: the Vatican's insistence on seeing natural law not as the laws of nature but the natural method of learning about the law of God (thanks to Thomas Aquinas). We have no problem arguing on the basis of natural law and even of co-ordinating social action with non-believers by it, but we will not substitute natural theology for the Creed.

This is beyond nonsense.   I cannot even understand why my Church would even dream of discoursing with such muddled thinking.  It's a good thing I am not in charge.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #231 on: December 07, 2010, 11:47:48 PM »


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


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

You know this, I know this.  It is in the Vademecum published by the Vatican for confessors.  

No question about pastoral.  And it is why I say you turn the exception into the rule. 

The Catholic Church teaches the rule and not the exception, though she makes room for pastoral exceptions.

You seem to think Orthodoxy teaches the exception as moral.

I really don't care except for the fact that there's some mythical attempt at cooperation that is deeply misguided.  But you keep talking and I am sure somebody in my Church will realize the futility of any kind of interaction on moral grounds.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #232 on: December 08, 2010, 12:08:09 AM »

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic except for possible use of condoms for the right reason.
The (high dose) pill, condoms, sterilization, artificial insemination, withdrawal, in vitro fertilization. and perhaps a few others I haven't thought of.

The article needs a bit of work.
Quote
The presence of a device in the uterus prompts the release of substances hostile to both sperm and eggs; the presence of copper increases this spermicidal effect. However, the same effect is believed to harm developing embryos. While the primary mechanism of the IUD is spermicidal/ovicidal, post-fertilization mechanisms are believed to contribute significantly to their effectiveness. Because Christians define fertilization as the beginning of life, this secondary effect is considered by them as early abortion.
Although correct, the reference to "secondary effects" would seem to indicate that the author is borrowiing his reasoning, rather than citing Orthodox moral theology.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,483



« Reply #233 on: December 08, 2010, 12:11:55 AM »

Quote
because it purposely frustrates the normal functioning of the human body with regard to reproduction.

And what if it does not succeed?

Then there is withrawal.


Even Orthodox see withdrawal as an over-indulgence of the flesh.
LOL. Don't rely on the orthodoxwiki article too much. Augustine posted something back from the perspective of someone who condemned condoms, and saw that as onainsm.  Those who condemn withdrawal are likely to condemn contraception (including abstinence during fertile periods) as well.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,483



« Reply #234 on: December 08, 2010, 12:21:45 AM »

http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=19

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

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


Much of the reasoning used here would make adoption impossible.
What in particular, Father?  For instance, in IL, the law recognizes that adoption was neither recognized by common law nor natural law, but was a borrowing  from Roman law.  In contrast, parental rights in the common law are recognized as coming to them by nature.  As part of that, the natural and common law rights of both parents must be terminated by due process before the legal attachments can be enacted by the adoption statute.  In what the Church says, it is not talking about children whose parents had their rights terminated, but those who sold or rented their rights.  After all, every sponsorship of a baptism is a form of adoption. In fact, in many countries a godchild is the heir of a childless godparent.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,483



« Reply #235 on: December 08, 2010, 12:23:31 AM »

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

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

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



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

M.
That is the problem: the Vatican's insistence on seeing natural law not as the laws of nature but the natural method of learning about the law of God (thanks to Thomas Aquinas). We have no problem arguing on the basis of natural law and even of co-ordinating social action with non-believers by it, but we will not substitute natural theology for the Creed.

This is beyond nonsense.   I cannot even understand why my Church would even dream of discoursing with such muddled thinking.  It's a good thing I am not in charge.
You are the one always prattling on about "dialoguing" Not I.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #236 on: December 08, 2010, 12:24:24 AM »


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception
From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic


Wiki of course is only as good as the "scholars" who contribute to it.

1) There are those who hold the view that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, and so even natural family planning would be prohibited.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

2) There are those who argue that natural family planning is acceptable, because it simply involves abstinence from sex during times when fertility is likely.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

3) There are those who teach that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used simply to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons. The statement on marriage and family from the 10th All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America follows along these lines, as does "The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," section XII. 3, which was approved by the 2000 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

At last ~ TWO official Orthodox sources are given for this last teaching.  We have moved out of dubious private opinion in (1) and (2) into the considered teaching of our bishops.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #237 on: December 08, 2010, 12:28:01 AM »

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic except for possible use of condoms for the right reason.

I don't know why you mention condom use.  The Wiki article leaves the condom section blank (as it does also for the sterilisation section.)  Are we meant to conclude that there is no teaching on condom use?  Or that the author/s of the Wiki article are clueless on this point?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #238 on: December 08, 2010, 12:29:45 AM »


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception
From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic


Wiki of course is only as good as the "scholars" who contribute to it.

1) There are those who hold the view that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, and so even natural family planning would be prohibited.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

2) There are those who argue that natural family planning is acceptable, because it simply involves abstinence from sex during times when fertility is likely.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

3) There are those who teach that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used simply to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons. The statement on marriage and family from the 10th All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America follows along these lines, as does "The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," section XII. 3, which was approved by the 2000 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

At last ~ TWO official Orthodox sources are given for this last teaching.  We have moved out of dubious private opinion in (1) and (2) into the considered teaching of our bishops.

Even with only the #3, the pill and IUDs are eliminated, leaving only condoms, withdrawal, and NFP?
Logged


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

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



WWW
« Reply #239 on: December 08, 2010, 12:30:57 AM »

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic except for possible use of condoms for the right reason.

I don't know why you mention condom use.  The Wiki article leaves the condom section blank (as it does also for the sterilisation section.)  Are we meant to conclude that there is no teaching on condom use?  Or that the author/s of the Wiki article are clueless on this point?

I'm including the recent announcement on condom use from the ROC, not expressed in the wiki.
Logged


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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #240 on: December 08, 2010, 12:35:29 AM »


Even Orthodox see withdrawal as an over-indulgence of the flesh.

Withdrawal is what your Catholic expert commentator might call outercourse onanism.  Intercourse on a day when the NFP charts say you cannot conceive might be called intervaginal onanism and an over-indulgence in the flesh.  Sin is in the intention, isn't it?  and the Roman Catholic approach is laden with intentional sin and the intentional waste of semen.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #241 on: December 08, 2010, 12:36:04 AM »


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception
From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic


Wiki of course is only as good as the "scholars" who contribute to it.

1) There are those who hold the view that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, and so even natural family planning would be prohibited.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

2) There are those who argue that natural family planning is acceptable, because it simply involves abstinence from sex during times when fertility is likely.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

3) There are those who teach that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used simply to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons. The statement on marriage and family from the 10th All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America follows along these lines, as does "The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," section XII. 3, which was approved by the 2000 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

At last ~ TWO official Orthodox sources are given for this last teaching.  We have moved out of dubious private opinion in (1) and (2) into the considered teaching of our bishops.

Even with only the #3, the pill and IUDs are eliminated, leaving only condoms, withdrawal, and NFP?
I don't think the pill is eliminated (the low dose perhaps is, from the risk of acting like an abortifacient; the high dose ones should be from the effects and risks on the woman, but that's just my opinion).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,483



« Reply #242 on: December 08, 2010, 01:41:27 AM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #243 on: December 08, 2010, 11:52:43 AM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
Logged


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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #244 on: December 08, 2010, 12:03:19 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2010, 12:10:54 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #245 on: December 08, 2010, 01:13:46 PM »

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


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

Again, it is helpful for to keep things in perspective and remember that a mere 2-3% of Roman Catholic couples use NFP anyway.  It's a dead duck in the water.  Catholics see no need to pay attention to the opinions of the Pope.
You didn't quote the rest of what I said. Nice try Father.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #246 on: December 08, 2010, 02:57:30 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #247 on: December 08, 2010, 03:11:44 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #248 on: December 08, 2010, 03:13:11 PM »

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

From my various talks with Trads, NFP isn't as popular because most either abstain or "leave it to God". NFP is a method for family planning, not an end in itself.
Logged


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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #249 on: December 08, 2010, 03:14:25 PM »

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

From my various talks with Trads, NFP isn't as popular because most either abstain or "leave it to God". NFP is a method for family planning, not an end in itself.
True. It should only be used to naturally space children for serious economic, or health reasons.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #250 on: December 08, 2010, 03:51:45 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 
No, the twisted arguments of Vatican theology. Like a pretzel.

Anyone can read that for themselves. Unlike you, I link and quote instead of conjecture and project the other side (or my side, for that matter).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,483



« Reply #251 on: December 08, 2010, 03:53:07 PM »


And now we hear from the
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!
corner
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,483



« Reply #252 on: December 08, 2010, 04:02:11 PM »

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

From my various talks with Trads, NFP isn't as popular because most either abstain

in the sense of "spiritual marriage"/"Josephite marriage"?

Quote
or "leave it to God". NFP is a method for family planning, not an end in itself.
Is any form of contraception an end in itself?  If it were, that would be a sin.
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 #253 on: December 08, 2010, 04:54:28 PM »

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

From my various talks with Trads, NFP isn't as popular because most either abstain or "leave it to God". NFP is a method for family planning, not an end in itself.

Sometimes people have difficulty grasping the fact that there are many Catholics who simply abstain...or as you say, leave it to God.

They tend to practice the rule rather than the exception. 

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #254 on: December 08, 2010, 05:43:05 PM »


And now we hear from the
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!
corner
Go to the corner.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #255 on: December 08, 2010, 07:04:35 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #256 on: December 08, 2010, 07:13:04 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #257 on: December 08, 2010, 08:37:21 PM »

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

From my various talks with Trads, NFP isn't as popular because most either abstain or "leave it to God". NFP is a method for family planning, not an end in itself.

Sometimes people have difficulty grasping the fact that there are many Catholics who simply abstain

Then why did they get married.

Quote
...or as you say, leave it to God.

But not so much: the surveys I have seen show the average family size of those on what you call "NFP" as 3, other families averaging 2. One would think that with the great chasm that is postulated between "ABC" and "NFP," the number would be more than 1 child.

Quote
They tend to practice the rule rather than the exception. 
There's that new talk of exception again.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #258 on: December 08, 2010, 09:15:33 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination.  

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

So Natural Law applies only to the human race?  The rest of the cosmos doesn't have a law?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2010, 09:15:53 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #259 on: December 08, 2010, 09:42:10 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Bulls don't "enjoy" sex, it's instinctual. When one bull "mounts" another, it is domination to set a hierarchy. Literally, one bull making the other bull his !%^@.
Logged


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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #260 on: December 08, 2010, 09:46:44 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,483



« Reply #261 on: December 08, 2010, 09:48:05 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Bulls don't "enjoy" sex, it's instinctual. When one bull "mounts" another, it is domination to set a hierarchy. Literally, one bull making the other bull his !%^@.
Thank God I am a city boy, not confronted with these matters.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #262 on: December 08, 2010, 09:56:07 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Bulls don't "enjoy" sex, it's instinctual. When one bull "mounts" another, it is domination to set a hierarchy. Literally, one bull making the other bull his !%^@.

I've lived with bulls and empirical evidence suggests there is a high level of pleasure going on.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #263 on: December 08, 2010, 10:02:35 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #264 on: December 09, 2010, 01:05:17 AM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #265 on: December 09, 2010, 12:38:07 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!
You're the ones basing your "morality" on what happens in nature. Not us. And neither of us are as fixated as the likes of your friend Mr. Conte
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #266 on: December 09, 2010, 01:35:36 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!
You're the ones basing your "morality" on what happens in nature. Not us. And neither of us are as fixated as the likes of your friend Mr. Conte
Another stupid post. We are talking about the metaphysical concept of a nature or physis. We are not talking about the law of the jungle. Geesh.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #267 on: December 09, 2010, 01:37:14 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.
Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #268 on: December 09, 2010, 01:38:48 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).

What's your point? St. Gregory had a mistaken view about a matter that pertains to emperical science. Where he was not mistaken in is that it is not proper to human nature (again, not the law of the junle) to engage in homosexual acts. Another swing and a miss for you isa.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #269 on: December 09, 2010, 01:40:45 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination.  

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

So Natural Law applies only to the human race?  The rest of the cosmos doesn't have a law?
The rest of the cosmos (i.e. irrational creatures) are governed by the laws of physics only. Only human beings have a rational and moral nature that evaluate the proper use of one's own functions, and so, only for rational beings is there a Natural Moral Law. But I am sure  you know that.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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 0.245 seconds with 73 queries.