OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 01:41:55 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: NFP is So Difficult  (Read 6364 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« on: December 23, 2009, 11:57:03 PM »

NFP is so incredibly difficult at times. It requires us (husband and wife) to fight our temptations--to sacrifice our own immediate desires for the benefit of the family as a whole. And because we're using NFP instead of ABC, we're sacrificing for our Lord as well.

This is exactly why NFP is morally acceptable (for the right reasons) and ABC is not morally acceptable (despite the reasons). NFP allows my wife and I to sacrifice together (one of the true callings of a husband and wife), for each other, for our family, and for our Lord. ABC is never sacrificial--its too easy.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2009, 12:01:34 AM »

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2009, 12:08:27 AM »

I agree that NFP is difficult. I also think it's birth control, and I'm pretty darn sure that the Church Fathers would have viewed it as such as well. But then, I think all (non abortifacient) birth control should be allowed, despite what the Fathers said, so I guess it doesn't really matter to me. Smiley
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 12:08:36 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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: 37,960



« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2009, 12:15:17 AM »

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?

We share an interest, but it ends up an issue.
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
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2009, 12:15:43 AM »

Asteriktos,
Whether NFP is birth control or not is a question I have struggled with in the past. I thought that the objective was the same therefore the act was the same. But lately I've come to realize something. The objective is not the same at all. If one chooses to use NFP to avoid pregnancy (for the right reasons) one is not choosing to obstruct God's design, but is instead abstaining when both persons are most drawn to having marital relations.

It is true, that when used correctly, NFP is as effective at preventing conception as any ABC method. However, using NFP correctly means you are sacrificing at precisely the times it is most difficult to sacrifice. Where as, with ABC we do whatever we want whenever we want despite God's will or His plan.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2009, 12:16:41 AM »

What does Not-For-Profit and the American Broadcasting Corporation have to do with anything?  Wink  Sorry, couldn't resist.
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2009, 12:17:01 AM »

The allegation of some Catholic theologians is that the teaching
on birth control has been changed to endorse the NFP method.
The papal teaching of the Pope was previously against NFP but
Pope Paul VI changed the teaching and allowed NFP.

Pope Pius XI, "Casti Connubii" in 1930:

"And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed
to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the
offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of
matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people
not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony
when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify
this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish
to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that
they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have
children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on
the part of the family circumstances.

"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything
intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally
good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for
the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate
its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is
shameful and intrinsically vicious.

"Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty
regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has
punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, 'Intercourse even with one's
legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is
prevented.' Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it
(Gen. 38:8-10).

"Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian
tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another
doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has
entrusted the defence of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect
in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may
preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul
stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through
Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such
a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to
generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those
who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and:

Tobias 6:17 - "The holy youth Tobias approaches his bride Sara after three
days of prayer, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity.
Having been instructed by the Archangel Saint Raphael that to engage in the
marital act he must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. For
they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from
themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as
the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath
power."



Saint Caesar of Arles: "As often as he knows his wife without a desire for
children. without a doubt he commits sin." W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the
Early Fathers.

Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2009, 12:19:50 AM »

What does Not-For-Profit and the American Broadcasting Corporation have to do with anything?  Wink  Sorry, couldn't resist.

lol  Grin

I got that acronym from these forums.  laugh
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,263



« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2009, 12:21:14 AM »

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?

This is what my pastor told me on the subject when I was inquiring into Orthodoxy about a year ago:

Quote
We have been taught that using contraceptives is not the way to have a Godly marriage, that children are a blessing from God, although you may run into some "modern liberal" Orthodox in America who ignore that. However, as Orthodox we also refrain from marital relations during fasting periods, i.e. Tuesday and Thursday nights (the eves of the Wed and Fri. fast), on any evening before receiving Holy Communion (such as Saturday evening and before the 12 Great Feast days), and during the entire time of the four fasts: Lent, Nativity Fast, Apostles Fast, and Dormition Fast. This adds up to more than half of the year that we abstain, and it seems to me upon cursory inspection that "large" Orthodox families are about half the size of "large" Catholic families. Also, you may know that while women are exclusively breastfeeding (on demand, no supplemental feedings) the hormones act as a natural birth control with about 98% effectiveness. Of course women are only fertile a few days every month, and abstinence during that time is a fairly effective method if needed. However, women are much more "interested" when they are fertile than at other times, so that has its frustrations. Basically though, we need and want more Orthodox babies and families for the sake of our souls (our spiritual growth and responsibility) and theirs.

I can't really say that NFP is difficult or not because I'm not married (nor near marriage), I, like Asteriktos, think that NFP is a type of birth control (albeit, not artificial).

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2009, 12:22:15 AM »

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2009, 12:27:51 AM »

Asteriktos,
Whether NFP is birth control or not is a question I have struggled with in the past. I thought that the objective was the same therefore the act was the same. But lately I've come to realize something. The objective is not the same at all. If one chooses to use NFP to avoid pregnancy (for the right reasons) one is not choosing to obstruct God's design, but is instead abstaining when both persons are most drawn to having marital relations.

It is true, that when used correctly, NFP is as effective at preventing conception as any ABC method. However, using NFP correctly means you are sacrificing at precisely the times it is most difficult to sacrifice. Where as, with ABC we do whatever we want whenever we want despite God's will or His plan.

Fair enough. I hope my post didn't come across as combative. Actually, after we had our second child, my wife started to use (priest-approved™) birth control, when her cardiologist told her that it'd be dangerous to go through another pregnancy.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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: 37,960



« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2009, 12:30:54 AM »

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.
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
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2009, 12:32:50 AM »

Asteriktos,
Whether NFP is birth control or not is a question I have struggled with in the past. I thought that the objective was the same therefore the act was the same. But lately I've come to realize something. The objective is not the same at all. If one chooses to use NFP to avoid pregnancy (for the right reasons) one is not choosing to obstruct God's design, but is instead abstaining when both persons are most drawn to having marital relations.

It is true, that when used correctly, NFP is as effective at preventing conception as any ABC method. However, using NFP correctly means you are sacrificing at precisely the times it is most difficult to sacrifice. Where as, with ABC we do whatever we want whenever we want despite God's will or His plan.

Fair enough. I hope my post didn't come across as combative. Actually, after we had our second child, my wife started to use (priest-approved™) birth control, when her cardiologist told her that it'd be dangerous to go through another pregnancy.

Oh no. I didn't feel you were being combative at all. I like the "priest-approved™" birth control.  Cheesy

Your situation, at least in the Catholic Church, would be a great reason to use NFP as a form of "birth control" though I don't think that phraseology would go over very well.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2009, 12:35:14 AM »

Isn't timing sexual intercourse to prevent conception birth control?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2009, 12:40:35 AM »

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?

NFP is OK but it is really a dead duck in the water.  People are just not interested in using it.    The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reported a few years back that they estimate that only between 2% and 3% of childbearing Catholic couples use  it.  The remaining 97% use methods of contraception forbidden by their  Church and seen as gravely sinful. 

So I would say, being very pragmatic, that if the Vatican with its very sophisticated educational techniques on family planning cannot persuade more than 3% of its married couples to use NFP you won't find too many Orthodox using it.

-oOo-

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/prolife/article_05.asp

"You can probably guess-timate that 2 or 3 percent of Catholic women use it [Natural Family Planning]," says Theresa Notare, assistant director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."

Logged
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,635



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2009, 12:40:51 AM »

What does Not-For-Profit and the American Broadcasting Corporation have to do with anything?  Wink  Sorry, couldn't resist.
YOMANK! laugh
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2009, 12:43:53 AM »

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.

ialmisry,
It was moved because of its connection with Humanae Vitae? Interesting.

The Catholic Church teaches that even NFP, when used as a means of "birth control" is a sin. But there are cases, such as that described by Asteriktos, where NFP would be an acceptable means of avoiding pregnancy.

It seems to me that the question is often over simplified. We say that either "contraception" is wrong, and therefore any means of avoiding pregnancy for any reason is wrong, or we say "contraception" is ok and is always ok.

I think the real answer is that intentionally obstructing God's plan for a married couple is inherently sinful when done for selfish reasons. But there are times when avoiding a pregnancy is necessary for the mental, physical, and spiritual health of all of those involved. The issue then becomes, what is the right way to avoid pregnancy in such a case? By partaking in the marital act whenever you want and intentionally and artificially obstructing its natural conclusion or by making a sacrificial act and abstaining when pregnancy is most likely?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2009, 12:45:21 AM »

Isn't timing sexual intercourse to prevent conception birth control?

Yes. It can be.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #18 on: December 24, 2009, 12:49:02 AM »

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?

NFP is OK but it is really a dead duck in the water.  People are just not interested in using it.    The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reported a few years back that they estimate that only between 2% and 3% of childbearing Catholic couples use  it.  The remaining 97% use methods of contraception forbidden by their  Church and seen as gravely sinful. 

So I would say, being very pragmatic, that if the Vatican with its very sophisticated educational techniques on family planning cannot persuade more than 3% of its married couples to use NFP you won't find too many Orthodox using it.

-oOo-

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/prolife/article_05.asp

"You can probably guess-timate that 2 or 3 percent of Catholic women use it [Natural Family Planning]," says Theresa Notare, assistant director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."

Dead duck? Ouch! Just because the majority of Catholics in the United States choose not to obey their Church does not mean the instructions of the Church are ignorable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't really matter who agrees.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,635



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 24, 2009, 12:49:29 AM »

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.

ialmisry,
It was moved because of its connection with Humanae Vitae? Interesting.

The Catholic Church teaches that even NFP, when used as a means of "birth control" is a sin. But there are cases, such as that described by Asteriktos, where NFP would be an acceptable means of avoiding pregnancy.

It seems to me that the question is often over simplified. We say that either "contraception" is wrong, and therefore any means of avoiding pregnancy for any reason is wrong, or we say "contraception" is ok and is always ok.

I think the real answer is that intentionally obstructing God's plan for a married couple is inherently sinful when done for selfish reasons. But there are times when avoiding a pregnancy is necessary for the mental, physical, and spiritual health of all of those involved. The issue then becomes, what is the right way to avoid pregnancy in such a case? By partaking in the marital act whenever you want and intentionally and artificially obstructing its natural conclusion or by making a sacrificial act and abstaining when pregnancy is most likely?
In other words, it's ok to practice birth control if you torture yourself sufficeintly in the process. That'll teach you.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
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: 37,960



« Reply #20 on: December 24, 2009, 12:56:10 AM »

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.

ialmisry,
It was moved because of its connection with Humanae Vitae? Interesting.

Just to be clear: I don't have any say in that. I've just seen how these types of threads go.

Quote
The Catholic Church teaches that even NFP, when used as a means of "birth control" is a sin. But there are cases, such as that described by Asteriktos, where NFP would be an acceptable means of avoiding pregnancy.

That's not the word that is being broadcast (and I watch/listen to a lot of Vatican TV/radio).  Birth control is fine as long as it is NFP.

Quote
It seems to me that the question is often over simplified. We say that either "contraception" is wrong, and therefore any means of avoiding pregnancy for any reason is wrong, or we say "contraception" is ok and is always ok.

I think the real answer is that intentionally obstructing God's plan for a married couple is inherently sinful when done for selfish reasons. But there are times when avoiding a pregnancy is necessary for the mental, physical, and spiritual health of all of those involved. The issue then becomes, what is the right way to avoid pregnancy in such a case? By partaking in the marital act whenever you want and intentionally and artificially obstructing its natural conclusion or by making a sacrificial act and abstaining when pregnancy is most likely?
That's usually when it becomes a cross tradition debate.
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: 37,960



« Reply #21 on: December 24, 2009, 12:57:20 AM »

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.

ialmisry,
It was moved because of its connection with Humanae Vitae? Interesting.

The Catholic Church teaches that even NFP, when used as a means of "birth control" is a sin. But there are cases, such as that described by Asteriktos, where NFP would be an acceptable means of avoiding pregnancy.

It seems to me that the question is often over simplified. We say that either "contraception" is wrong, and therefore any means of avoiding pregnancy for any reason is wrong, or we say "contraception" is ok and is always ok.

I think the real answer is that intentionally obstructing God's plan for a married couple is inherently sinful when done for selfish reasons. But there are times when avoiding a pregnancy is necessary for the mental, physical, and spiritual health of all of those involved. The issue then becomes, what is the right way to avoid pregnancy in such a case? By partaking in the marital act whenever you want and intentionally and artificially obstructing its natural conclusion or by making a sacrificial act and abstaining when pregnancy is most likely?
In other words, it's ok to practice birth control if you torture yourself sufficeintly in the process. That'll teach you.
Oh, I've seen traditional Jewish teaching on the subject of intercourse. I wouldn't throw stones.
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
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #22 on: December 24, 2009, 12:58:18 AM »

In other words, it's ok to practice birth control if you torture yourself sufficeintly in the process. That'll teach you.

No. Sacrifice does not necessarily mean torture. But even if it were the case, it is the submitting to God's will and placing yourself at His mercy that makes the difference. There is no sacrificial component to artificial birth control. It is used precisely because couples want the freedom to engage in marital relations without ever having the unintended consequence of conceiving a child. In other words, they want their cake and they want to eat it too.

NFP forces couples to control themselves--to submit to God's own built in mechanisms. I don't choose when I want to obstain from relations with my wife. I only choose whether I want to. God's own design has dictated when and if my abstinence will matter. I am still subject to His will. ABC means I circumvent his will without any regard for what His will is.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 12:59:06 AM by militantsparrow » Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #23 on: December 24, 2009, 12:58:38 AM »

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?
O
NFP is OK but it is really a dead duck in the water.  People are just not interested in using it.    The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reported a few years back that they estimate that only between 2% and 3% of childbearing Catholic couples use  it.  The remaining 97% use methods of contraception forbidden by their  Church and seen as gravely sinful. 

So I would say, being very pragmatic, that if the Vatican with its very sophisticated educational techniques on family planning cannot persuade more than 3% of its married couples to use NFP you won't find too many Orthodox using it.

-oOo-

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/prolife/article_05.asp

"You can probably guess-timate that 2 or 3 percent of Catholic women use it [Natural Family Planning]," says Theresa Notare, assistant director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."

Dead duck? Ouch! Just because the majority of Catholics in the United States choose not to obey their Church does not mean the instructions of the Church are ignorable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't really matter who agrees.


It just means no one cares...
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: December 24, 2009, 12:59:56 AM »

Dead duck? Ouch! Just because the majority of Catholics in the United States choose not to obey their Church does not mean the instructions of the Church are ignorable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't really matter who agrees.




Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.


The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

"I’m aware of the safeguarding of contraception on the basis of an intrinsic relation to the concept of “natural law”, but please explain this: Prior to the release of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI indirectly admitted in his address to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964 that the teaching on birth control may be changed - the Pope asserted the validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control “at least as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” (Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1964).

"The RCC places the sinfulness of contraception on a par with adultery, fornication, murder etc. as a mortal sin falling under natural law which cannot be altered. Is the Pope’s frank admission above indicative of a teaching which is unalterable by Rome’s criteria? What would your reaction be were a Pope to state that the teaching on adultery remains the same “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it”??
 
 
I believe that we are seeing, on the Roman Catholic side, the beginnings of a re-formulation of this matter. Proabably by discerning more deeply the principle of double effect, contraception will find greater acceptance among the papal theologians, and the overly rigorous teaching of Humanae Vitae will be deepened and clarified.

To be frank, I am of the opinion that this will take place, not because of any imperative of the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox but because a failure to do so will see a deepening crisis of authority within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I do not think that the clergy and the laity will find themselves able to go on living with the strain of the present double speak and pretense which requires them to say one thing while actually doing another.

So, I am optimistic on this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original Italian of Paul VI's address...

È allo studio, diciamo, che speriamo presto concludere con la collaborazione di molti ed insigni studiosi. Ne daremo pertanto presto le conclusioni nella forma che sarà ritenuta più adeguata all’oggetto trattato e allo scopo da conseguire. Ma diciamo intanto francamente che non abbiamo finora motivo sufficiente per ritenere superate e perciò non obbliganti le norme date da Papa Pio XII a tale riguardo; esse devono perciò ritenersi valide, almeno finché non Ci sentiamo in coscienza obbligati a modificarle. In tema di tanta gravità sembra bene che i Cattolici vogliano seguire un’unica legge, quale la Chiesa autorevolmente propone; e sembra pertanto opportuno raccomandare che nessuno per ora si arroghi di pronunciarsi in termini difformi dalla norma, vigente.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 01:02:18 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #25 on: December 24, 2009, 01:01:50 AM »

That's not the word that is being broadcast (and I watch/listen to a lot of Vatican TV/radio).  Birth control is fine as long as it is NFP.

I do too. But to me the teaching is pretty clear. NFP is not to be used for preventing births unless there are grave reasons.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 01:02:16 AM by militantsparrow » Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,635



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 24, 2009, 01:03:07 AM »

my sig. other and I have never used any type of birth control. go figure!
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #27 on: December 24, 2009, 01:04:08 AM »

I find this thread very informative!

Fr. Ambrose- never a disappointment! Cheesy
Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #28 on: December 24, 2009, 01:05:05 AM »

It just means no one cares...

Again, it doesn't matter. If the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ, then it doesn't matter if anyone agrees or cares about anything it says or claims. It is either true or it is not true. Truth is not a popularity contest.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #29 on: December 24, 2009, 01:08:43 AM »

It just means no one cares...

Again, it doesn't matter. If the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ, then it doesn't matter if anyone agrees or cares about anything it says or claims. It is either true or it is not true. Truth is not a popularity contest.

I could be completely wrong here, but would the Orthodox response to this be that if the people reject almost unanymously the teaching of their hierarchs then that would be an indication that that teaching is incorrect or suspect at least?

The reason I wonder is because this seems to be at least one perspective on what validates, at least in part, synods and councils, is it not?
Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,139


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #30 on: December 24, 2009, 01:10:32 AM »

Isn't timing sexual intercourse to prevent conception birth control?

Yes. It can be.

Correction: Yes, it is. Sorry. Let's not get bogged down in semantics here. If the sexual act is not carried out, what's the moral problem? We're not talking about the Pill or condoms here, just avoidance of intercourse. What's wrong with that from either the RC or Orthodox perspective?
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 01:10:49 AM by LBK » 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: 37,960



« Reply #31 on: December 24, 2009, 01:11:19 AM »

my sig. other and I have never used any type of birth control. go figure!

"male and female he created them."  You have to have one of each for birth to occur.
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
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #32 on: December 24, 2009, 01:14:52 AM »

Dead duck? Ouch! Just because the majority of Catholics in the United States choose not to obey their Church does not mean the instructions of the Church are ignorable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't really matter who agrees.




Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.


The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

"I’m aware of the safeguarding of contraception on the basis of an intrinsic relation to the concept of “natural law”, but please explain this: Prior to the release of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI indirectly admitted in his address to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964 that the teaching on birth control may be changed - the Pope asserted the validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control “at least as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” (Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1964).

"The RCC places the sinfulness of contraception on a par with adultery, fornication, murder etc. as a mortal sin falling under natural law which cannot be altered. Is the Pope’s frank admission above indicative of a teaching which is unalterable by Rome’s criteria? What would your reaction be were a Pope to state that the teaching on adultery remains the same “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it”??
 
 
I believe that we are seeing, on the Roman Catholic side, the beginnings of a re-formulation of this matter. Proabably by discerning more deeply the principle of double effect, contraception will find greater acceptance among the papal theologians, and the overly rigorous teaching of Humanae Vitae will be deepened and clarified.

To be frank, I am of the opinion that this will take place, not because of any imperative of the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox but because a failure to do so will see a deepening crisis of authority within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I do not think that the clergy and the laity will find themselves able to go on living with the strain of the present double speak and pretense which requires them to say one thing while actually doing another.

So, I am optimistic on this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original Italian of Paul VI's address...

È allo studio, diciamo, che speriamo presto concludere con la collaborazione di molti ed insigni studiosi. Ne daremo pertanto presto le conclusioni nella forma che sarà ritenuta più adeguata all’oggetto trattato e allo scopo da conseguire. Ma diciamo intanto francamente che non abbiamo finora motivo sufficiente per ritenere superate e perciò non obbliganti le norme date da Papa Pio XII a tale riguardo; esse devono perciò ritenersi valide, almeno finché non Ci sentiamo in coscienza obbligati a modificarle. In tema di tanta gravità sembra bene che i Cattolici vogliano seguire un’unica legge, quale la Chiesa autorevolmente propone; e sembra pertanto opportuno raccomandare che nessuno per ora si arroghi di pronunciarsi in termini difformi dalla norma, vigente.


I recently listened to a talk by the Secretary to Pope Paul VI. He stated that the Pope's decision to move forward with Humanae Vitae was one which he struggled with. He knew it would not be popular. He knew it would be a hard teaching. He had plenty of people advising him against it, but he knew it was right.

Stating “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” does not mean it will be altered. It merely reflects Pope Paul's own uneasiness. His human doubt. But in the end he did what he believed the Holy Spirit was compelling him to do. He withheld what he believed to be the "validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control." I don't think there is any other Christian denomination in the world that still holds this tradition. But Peter wasn't called the Rock for nothing.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,635



WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 24, 2009, 01:15:05 AM »

my sig. other and I have never used any type of birth control. go figure!

"male and female he created them."  You have to have one of each for birth to occur.
really?  Huh
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #34 on: December 24, 2009, 01:16:44 AM »

I could be completely wrong here, but would the Orthodox response to this be that if the people reject almost unanymously the teaching of their hierarchs then that would be an indication that that teaching is incorrect or suspect at least?

The reason I wonder is because this seems to be at least one perspective on what validates, at least in part, synods and councils, is it not?

I'm not the right person to answer this question, but I believe you are correct in your understanding.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #35 on: December 24, 2009, 01:19:11 AM »

Isn't timing sexual intercourse to prevent conception birth control?

Yes. It can be.

Correction: Yes, it is. Sorry. Let's not get bogged down in semantics here. If the sexual act is not carried out, what's the moral problem? We're not talking about the Pill or condoms here, just avoidance of intercourse. What's wrong with that from either the RC or Orthodox perspective?

I don't believe the question is a matter of the times when intercourse is avoided, but is instead the instances where the conjugal act is engaged with the knowledge that conception is only 1% likely.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #36 on: December 24, 2009, 01:19:40 AM »

Quote
We're not talking about the Pill or condoms here, just avoidance of intercourse. What's wrong with that from either the RC or Orthodox perspective?

From an Orthodox perspective, I suppose it depends. Some would argue that the Eastern Fathers didn't speak on the matter, or spoke on it rarely. Such people would build a case that the western Fathers who spoke on the issue (Bl. Augustine, St. Gregory Dialogist, etc.) should not be listened to. They could point to more than just the contraception issue (e.g. priestly celibacy) in an attempt to show that the western parts of the Church had a different viewpoint on sexual matters than the eastern parts. On the other hand, some other people could argue that a number of Church Fathers spoke against contraception, and none allowed it; also, when they spoke against it, that included ancient methods which avoided intercourse.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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: 37,960



« Reply #37 on: December 24, 2009, 01:21:35 AM »

Dead duck? Ouch! Just because the majority of Catholics in the United States choose not to obey their Church does not mean the instructions of the Church are ignorable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't really matter who agrees.




Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.


The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

"I’m aware of the safeguarding of contraception on the basis of an intrinsic relation to the concept of “natural law”, but please explain this: Prior to the release of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI indirectly admitted in his address to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964 that the teaching on birth control may be changed - the Pope asserted the validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control “at least as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” (Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1964).

"The RCC places the sinfulness of contraception on a par with adultery, fornication, murder etc. as a mortal sin falling under natural law which cannot be altered. Is the Pope’s frank admission above indicative of a teaching which is unalterable by Rome’s criteria? What would your reaction be were a Pope to state that the teaching on adultery remains the same “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it”??
 
 
I believe that we are seeing, on the Roman Catholic side, the beginnings of a re-formulation of this matter. Proabably by discerning more deeply the principle of double effect, contraception will find greater acceptance among the papal theologians, and the overly rigorous teaching of Humanae Vitae will be deepened and clarified.

To be frank, I am of the opinion that this will take place, not because of any imperative of the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox but because a failure to do so will see a deepening crisis of authority within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I do not think that the clergy and the laity will find themselves able to go on living with the strain of the present double speak and pretense which requires them to say one thing while actually doing another.

So, I am optimistic on this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original Italian of Paul VI's address...

È allo studio, diciamo, che speriamo presto concludere con la collaborazione di molti ed insigni studiosi. Ne daremo pertanto presto le conclusioni nella forma che sarà ritenuta più adeguata all’oggetto trattato e allo scopo da conseguire. Ma diciamo intanto francamente che non abbiamo finora motivo sufficiente per ritenere superate e perciò non obbliganti le norme date da Papa Pio XII a tale riguardo; esse devono perciò ritenersi valide, almeno finché non Ci sentiamo in coscienza obbligati a modificarle. In tema di tanta gravità sembra bene che i Cattolici vogliano seguire un’unica legge, quale la Chiesa autorevolmente propone; e sembra pertanto opportuno raccomandare che nessuno per ora si arroghi di pronunciarsi in termini difformi dalla norma, vigente.


I recently listened to a talk by the Secretary to Pope Paul VI. He stated that the Pope's decision to move forward with Humanae Vitae was one which he struggled with. He knew it would not be popular. He knew it would be a hard teaching. He had plenty of people advising him against it, but he knew it was right.

Stating “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” does not mean it will be altered. It merely reflects Pope Paul's own uneasiness. His human doubt. But in the end he did what he believed the Holy Spirit was compelling him to do. He withheld what he believed to be the "validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control." I don't think there is any other Christian denomination in the world that still holds this tradition. But Peter wasn't called the Rock for nothing.

And the thread is tied into its proper place.
Logged

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

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 24, 2009, 01:22:31 AM »

I don't choose when I want to obstain from relations with my wife.
What nonsense! Of course you are choosing when to abstain from sex. You are choosing to abstain from sex when it is likely that you two will conceive. Why can't you just admit you are practising birth control (and not very effective birth control).
Logged

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

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #39 on: December 24, 2009, 01:24:01 AM »

Quote
We're not talking about the Pill or condoms here, just avoidance of intercourse. What's wrong with that from either the RC or Orthodox perspective?

From an Orthodox perspective, I suppose it depends. Some would argue that the Eastern Fathers didn't speak on the matter, or spoke on it rarely. Such people would build a case that the western Fathers who spoke on the issue (Bl. Augustine, St. Gregory Dialogist, etc.) should not be listened to. They could point to more than just the contraception issue (e.g. priestly celibacy) in an attempt to show that the western parts of the Church had a different viewpoint on sexual matters than the eastern parts. On the other hand, some other people could argue that a number of Church Fathers spoke against contraception, and none allowed it; also, when they spoke against it, that included ancient methods which avoided intercourse.

Could you recommend some books on this, Asteriktos?
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: 37,960



« Reply #40 on: December 24, 2009, 01:24:36 AM »

I don't choose when I want to obstain from relations with my wife.
What nonsense! Of course you are choosing when to abstain from sex. You are choosing to abstain from sex when it is likely that you two will conceive. Why can't you just admit you are practising birth control (and not very effective birth control).

Oh?  Not from the studies I've seen (secular, on third world training, in the context of trying to conceive, and trying to conceive a child of one sex).
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
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #41 on: December 24, 2009, 01:25:14 AM »

I could be completely wrong here, but would the Orthodox response to this be that if the people reject almost unanimously the teaching of their hierarchs then that would be an indication that that teaching is incorrect or suspect at least?

Not necessarily.  Arianism was the standard at one point with the laity, East and West, and they weren't having it any other way.  Sometimes the hierarchs are the only ones that are right.  And sometimes they are heretics.
Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #42 on: December 24, 2009, 01:25:27 AM »

And the thread is tied into its proper place.

Yes. But I would have avoided this kind of language if it was kept where I started it. I did not bring this issue up to be confrontational from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective. I wanted to talk the issue of NFP as a contraceptive through. There are many good people on this forum (yourself included, ialmisry) who have much to offer in the way of thoughtful Christian dialog on very important topics. I learn from dialog--especially from learned Christians with varying viewpoints.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #43 on: December 24, 2009, 01:30:44 AM »

I don't choose when I want to obstain from relations with my wife.
What nonsense! Of course you are choosing when to abstain from sex. You are choosing to abstain from sex when it is likely that you two will conceive. Why can't you just admit you are practising birth control (and not very effective birth control).

Nonsense? Really? I don't choose when to abstain from sex because I do not choose when my wife is ovulating. God designed us. I did not design us. He chooses when she ovulates.

If we were to use some sort of artificial birth control, then I could choose any time to abstain or any time not to abstain and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. With NFP, I am always dependent on God.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 24, 2009, 01:34:48 AM »

I don't choose when I want to obstain from relations with my wife.
What nonsense! Of course you are choosing when to abstain from sex. You are choosing to abstain from sex when it is likely that you two will conceive. Why can't you just admit you are practising birth control (and not very effective birth control).

Nonsense? Really? I don't choose when to abstain from sex because I do not choose when my wife is ovulating. God designed us. I did not design us. He chooses when she ovulates.

If we were to use some sort of artificial birth control, then I could choose any time to abstain or any time not to abstain and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. With NFP, I am always dependent on God.
Yes. It is absolute pharisaical nonsense. You ARE choosing to abstain from sex at certain times, which, the Apostles said should only be done for a time for the purpose of prayer- not to avoid getting pregnant. God isn't telling you not to have sex during ovulation, you are choosing to do this of your own accord. Don't blame God for your choices.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #45 on: December 24, 2009, 01:39:41 AM »

Yes. It is absolute pharisaical nonsense. You ARE choosing to abstain from sex at certain times, which, the Apostles said should only be done for a time for the purpose of prayer- not to avoid getting pregnant. God isn't telling you not to have sex during ovulation, you are choosing to do this of your own accord. Don't blame God for your choices.

What makes you think I am blaming God? The debate is over the difference between artificial contraception and natural family planning. Natural Family Planning is playing a game by the rules. Artificial contraception is playing the game with complete disregard for the rules. There is a very big difference.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
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: 37,960



« Reply #46 on: December 24, 2009, 01:40:31 AM »

And the thread is tied into its proper place.

Yes. But I would have avoided this kind of language if it was kept where I started it. I did not bring this issue up to be confrontational from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective. I wanted to talk the issue of NFP as a contraceptive through. There are many good people on this forum (yourself included, ialmisry) who have much to offer in the way of thoughtful Christian dialog on very important topics. I learn from dialog--especially from learned Christians with varying viewpoints.
I'm probably going to agree with most of what you have to say, and Humanae Vitae for that matter.  Somewhere here I threshed that out once.
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #47 on: December 24, 2009, 01:41:07 AM »

Quote
Could you recommend some books on this, Asteriktos?

Well, here are a few that I remember...

Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, by John T. Noonan. This one is from a Catholic perspective, and is probably the most detailed book I've read on the subject.  Noonan attempts to be scholarly, though Orthodox/Catholic Christians will take issue with some things in the book; e.g. Noonan excludes oral tradition as a possible source from which Church Fathers got their morality, instead saying that stoicism played a significant part in the condemnation of contraception. Still, of the books I've read, it is the one that will give you the most quotes and references.

Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700, by Eve Levin. This one is from an Orthodox perspective, but only covers contraception briefly, and only (obviously) among the Slavs. This book is also scholarly, though again Orthodox/Catholic Christians might take issue with some things in the book; e.g. she speaks as though the Orthodox believe that sexual feelings are evil or dirty.

Women and Men in the Early Church: The Full Views of St. John Chrysostom, by David Ford. This one is from a more traditional Orthodox perspective, and is more a popular level book (not that the books by Noonan and Levin are overly-academic, but there is a difference). If I recall correctly, this book argues that the Eastern Church Fathers didn't really speak on the matter of contraception, though I think it briefly covers most of the major early Church Fathers who did. Actually, I think that this book is worth it just for the rest of the stuff (mostly about relations between the sexes, though Mr. Ford does tend to lose focus sometimes while attempting to refute certain feminist views).

I remember reading other things, like the article Pseudosex in Pseudotheology by Fr. Paul D. O'Callaghan (who was kind enough to send me a copy of the article for free), but the above three are the ones that usually come to mind when this subject comes up.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 01:43:37 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #48 on: December 24, 2009, 01:43:37 AM »

What makes you think I am blaming God?
Possibly when you said:

NFP forces couples to control themselves--to submit to God's own built in mechanisms. I don't choose when I want to obstain from relations with my wife. I only choose whether I want to. God's own design has dictated when and if my abstinence will matter. I am still subject to His will. ABC means I circumvent his will without any regard for what His will is.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #49 on: December 24, 2009, 01:44:33 AM »

I'm probably going to agree with most of what you have to say, and Humanae Vitae for that matter.  Somewhere here I threshed that out once.

Well that's ok too.  Smiley
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #50 on: December 24, 2009, 01:47:59 AM »

Yes. It is absolute pharisaical nonsense. You ARE choosing to abstain from sex at certain times, which, the Apostles said should only be done for a time for the purpose of prayer- not to avoid getting pregnant. God isn't telling you not to have sex during ovulation, you are choosing to do this of your own accord. Don't blame God for your choices.

What makes you think I am blaming God? The debate is over the difference between artificial contraception and natural family planning. Natural Family Planning is playing a game by the rules. Artificial contraception is playing the game with complete disregard for the rules. There is a very big difference.

What if you find out you can never get pregnant as long as you keep your fingers crossed?  Would it then still be ok cause this is the way God made you?

Just sayin'... Grin
Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2009, 01:49:45 AM »

What makes you think I am blaming God?
Possibly when you said:

NFP forces couples to control themselves--to submit to God's own built in mechanisms. I don't choose when I want to obstain from relations with my wife. I only choose whether I want to. God's own design has dictated when and if my abstinence will matter. I am still subject to His will. ABC means I circumvent his will without any regard for what His will is.

That post was one of many in a series. You cannot take one post out of context. But even without context, this post simply states that NFP requires us to submit to God's plan. This is not me blaming God. I rather like submitting to Him. In fact, submission to God and His plan is the basis for all Christian morality. How is obedience to God somehow a bash or blame against God?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #52 on: December 24, 2009, 01:52:57 AM »

Yes. It is absolute pharisaical nonsense. You ARE choosing to abstain from sex at certain times, which, the Apostles said should only be done for a time for the purpose of prayer- not to avoid getting pregnant. God isn't telling you not to have sex during ovulation, you are choosing to do this of your own accord. Don't blame God for your choices.

What makes you think I am blaming God? The debate is over the difference between artificial contraception and natural family planning. Natural Family Planning is playing a game by the rules. Artificial contraception is playing the game with complete disregard for the rules. There is a very big difference.

What if you find out you can never get pregnant as long as you keep your fingers crossed?  Would it then still be ok cause this is the way God made you?

Just sayin'... Grin

Is that true? All I have to do is cross my fingers?

The facts are crossing fingers has nothing to do with reality. What does matter is God has built into humans natural cycles which allow and prevent the conception of life at certain times. We also know that not everyone can or should have children non-stop every nine months. So we have a choice, either use God's own built in cycles for regulating births or we can circumvent God's design all together and use artificial birth control whenever you feel like it.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #53 on: December 24, 2009, 01:55:02 AM »

What makes you think I am blaming God?
Possibly when you said:

NFP forces couples to control themselves--to submit to God's own built in mechanisms. I don't choose when I want to obstain from relations with my wife. I only choose whether I want to. God's own design has dictated when and if my abstinence will matter. I am still subject to His will. ABC means I circumvent his will without any regard for what His will is.

That post was one of many in a series. You cannot take one post out of context. But even without context, this post simply states that NFP requires us to submit to God's plan. This is not me blaming God. I rather like submitting to Him. In fact, submission to God and His plan is the basis for all Christian morality. How is obedience to God somehow a bash or blame against God?

I think the very thing in question is whether or not God's plan is that you
1) Avoid contraception

and

2) If He does want you to avoid contraception, that He's with avoiding sex for the same purposes.

Just cause God made you a certain way doesn't mean all behaviors that exploit that fact of your creation are morally justifiable.  God made me to where if I hold my breath long enough I will pass out, yet I don't conclude that this is the only morally acceptable way to making myself pass out- to the exclusion of say, hyper-venilating into a bag.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #54 on: December 24, 2009, 01:58:30 AM »

Yes. It is absolute pharisaical nonsense. You ARE choosing to abstain from sex at certain times, which, the Apostles said should only be done for a time for the purpose of prayer- not to avoid getting pregnant. God isn't telling you not to have sex during ovulation, you are choosing to do this of your own accord. Don't blame God for your choices.

What makes you think I am blaming God? The debate is over the difference between artificial contraception and natural family planning. Natural Family Planning is playing a game by the rules. Artificial contraception is playing the game with complete disregard for the rules. There is a very big difference.

What if you find out you can never get pregnant as long as you keep your fingers crossed?  Would it then still be ok cause this is the way God made you?

Just sayin'... Grin

Is that true? All I have to do is cross my fingers?

The facts are crossing fingers has nothing to do with reality. What does matter is God has built into humans natural cycles which allow and prevent the conception of life at certain times. We also know that not everyone can or should have children non-stop every nine months. So we have a choice, either use God's own built in cycles for regulating births or we can circumvent God's design all together and use artificial birth control whenever you feel like it.

Why doesn't god want you to have kids every 9 months? Does god hate kids?

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #55 on: December 24, 2009, 02:00:21 AM »

Yes. It is absolute pharisaical nonsense. You ARE choosing to abstain from sex at certain times, which, the Apostles said should only be done for a time for the purpose of prayer- not to avoid getting pregnant. God isn't telling you not to have sex during ovulation, you are choosing to do this of your own accord. Don't blame God for your choices.

What makes you think I am blaming God? The debate is over the difference between artificial contraception and natural family planning. Natural Family Planning is playing a game by the rules. Artificial contraception is playing the game with complete disregard for the rules. There is a very big difference.

What if you find out you can never get pregnant as long as you keep your fingers crossed?  Would it then still be ok cause this is the way God made you?

Just sayin'... Grin

Is that true? All I have to do is cross my fingers?

The facts are crossing fingers has nothing to do with reality. What does matter is God has built into humans natural cycles which allow and prevent the conception of life at certain times. We also know that not everyone can or should have children non-stop every nine months. So we have a choice, either use God's own built in cycles for regulating births or we can circumvent God's design all together and use artificial birth control whenever you feel like it.

But it's only modern science that has brought made this so exact.  How is this any less artificial? How do we know God wants us to use this fact about conception for the purpose of contraception?

I don't really know if NFP is ok or not, or if other forms of contraception aren't.  I'm not married.  I'm just saying I think maybe this is the point that was trying to be made- i.e. that just because God made a woman's body to not conceive during certain times does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that we should exploit that to prevent conception and abstain from all other forms of contraception.

I do see your point though!
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 24, 2009, 02:00:59 AM »

Why doesn't god want you to have kids every 9 months? Does god hate kids?
Look. Its perfectly simple GiC. God doesn't want us to use anything artificial, only what He gave us, which is why we all live in caves and not in houses made of bricks.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #57 on: December 24, 2009, 02:05:30 AM »

What makes you think I am blaming God?
Possibly when you said:

NFP forces couples to control themselves--to submit to God's own built in mechanisms. I don't choose when I want to obstain from relations with my wife. I only choose whether I want to. God's own design has dictated when and if my abstinence will matter. I am still subject to His will. ABC means I circumvent his will without any regard for what His will is.

That post was one of many in a series. You cannot take one post out of context. But even without context, this post simply states that NFP requires us to submit to God's plan. This is not me blaming God. I rather like submitting to Him. In fact, submission to God and His plan is the basis for all Christian morality. How is obedience to God somehow a bash or blame against God?

I think the very thing in question is whether or not God's plan is that you
1) Avoid contraception

and

2) If He does want you to avoid contraception, that He's with avoiding sex for the same purposes.

Just cause God made you a certain way doesn't mean all behaviors that exploit that fact of your creation are morally justifiable.  God made me to where if I hold my breath long enough I will pass out, yet I don't conclude that this is the only morally acceptable way to making myself pass out- to the exclusion of say, hyper-venilating into a bag.

These are not rational arguments. In fact, I don't think our instincts allow us to hold our breath long enough to pass out without some artificial means such as breathing into a bag.

But I don't think the issue is whether God wants us to avoid contraception for any and all means. Both Orthodox and Catholic's agree that avoiding pregnancy can at times be morally justifiable--in either faith it is recommended that the couple speak to their priest for guidance. What I believe is at question here is what "means" of avoiding pregnancy is morally justifiable. ABC? or NFP?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #58 on: December 24, 2009, 02:07:52 AM »

Why doesn't god want you to have kids every 9 months? Does god hate kids?
Look. Its perfectly simple GiC. God doesn't want us to use anything artificial, only what He gave us, which is why we all live in caves and not in houses made of bricks.

Yes. And a domestic dwelling is equal to human life.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 24, 2009, 02:10:16 AM »

Why doesn't god want you to have kids every 9 months? Does god hate kids?
Look. Its perfectly simple GiC. God doesn't want us to use anything artificial, only what He gave us, which is why we all live in caves and not in houses made of bricks.

Yes. And a domestic dwelling is equal to human life.
What do you care? You are deliberately trying to prevent human life. Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #60 on: December 24, 2009, 02:11:26 AM »

Yes. It is absolute pharisaical nonsense. You ARE choosing to abstain from sex at certain times, which, the Apostles said should only be done for a time for the purpose of prayer- not to avoid getting pregnant. God isn't telling you not to have sex during ovulation, you are choosing to do this of your own accord. Don't blame God for your choices.

What makes you think I am blaming God? The debate is over the difference between artificial contraception and natural family planning. Natural Family Planning is playing a game by the rules. Artificial contraception is playing the game with complete disregard for the rules. There is a very big difference.

What if you find out you can never get pregnant as long as you keep your fingers crossed?  Would it then still be ok cause this is the way God made you?

Just sayin'... Grin

Is that true? All I have to do is cross my fingers?

The facts are crossing fingers has nothing to do with reality. What does matter is God has built into humans natural cycles which allow and prevent the conception of life at certain times. We also know that not everyone can or should have children non-stop every nine months. So we have a choice, either use God's own built in cycles for regulating births or we can circumvent God's design all together and use artificial birth control whenever you feel like it.

But it's only modern science that has brought made this so exact.  How is this any less artificial? How do we know God wants us to use this fact about conception for the purpose of contraception?

I don't really know if NFP is ok or not, or if other forms of contraception aren't.  I'm not married.  I'm just saying I think maybe this is the point that was trying to be made- i.e. that just because God made a woman's body to not conceive during certain times does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that we should exploit that to prevent conception and abstain from all other forms of contraception.

I do see your point though!

You are correct. Just because God made a woman's body in such a way that there are times when she cannot conceive does not mean that we can take advantage of this fact for our own pleasure or desire. Even if using NFP, we must have serious reasons for avoiding pregnancy and we must seek God's guidance through prayer, through conversations as a couple and by speaking to our priest.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #61 on: December 24, 2009, 02:13:47 AM »

Why doesn't god want you to have kids every 9 months? Does god hate kids?
Look. Its perfectly simple GiC. God doesn't want us to use anything artificial, only what He gave us, which is why we all live in caves and not in houses made of bricks.

Yes. And a domestic dwelling is equal to human life.
What do you care? You are deliberately trying to prevent human life. Smiley

I am not trying to prevent human life any more than I am trying to prevent myself from moving into a cave. But if I were trying to avoid having another child, my decision to have another child--to bring a new life into the world--is far more graver a decision than to move into a cave, a mansion, or a house boat.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #62 on: December 24, 2009, 02:16:37 AM »

I am not trying to prevent human life
Of course not. You're just deliberately avoiding having sex when it might lead to another human life.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #63 on: December 24, 2009, 02:22:37 AM »

I am not trying to prevent human life
Of course not. You're just deliberately avoiding having sex when it might lead to another human life.

If one is using NFP to avoid pregnancy, then you are correct. That is precisely what they are doing. But again, I see this as being drastically different than the ABC approach. That is to say, "have sex all you want just make sure you prevent the act from reaching its natural conclusion."
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #64 on: December 24, 2009, 02:37:57 AM »

Thank you, everyone for engaging me on this discussion/debate. It is an area which I know is kind of a hot topic, but it is also one of great importance to me and one which I find great opportunity for spiritual growth by exploring the intricacies with other Christians.

I'd also like to add that at no point was I offended or was I trying to offend anyone. My goal is to dialog on issues of importance and that's it.

And if I'm not on in the next two days, Merry Christmas.

God bless.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 02:38:51 AM by militantsparrow » Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #65 on: December 24, 2009, 04:32:34 AM »

And the thread is tied into its proper place.

Yes. But I would have avoided this kind of language if it was kept where I started it. I did not bring this issue up to be confrontational from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective. I wanted to talk the issue of NFP as a contraceptive through. There are many good people on this forum (yourself included, ialmisry) who have much to offer in the way of thoughtful Christian dialog on very important topics. I learn from dialog--especially from learned Christians with varying viewpoints.

Sparrow,

The argument is simpy too ethereal.  The dialogue is unreal and meaningless. The Catholic faithful have voted in their marital lives, overwhelmingly, that they are not interested in practising NFP.  Why would the Orthodox have any interest in it, except maybe as an abstruse academic topic of speculation removed from real life?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #66 on: December 24, 2009, 05:32:44 AM »

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.
Speak for yourself, Isa. Angry  Since I moved this thread, I don't think you're qualified to know exactly why I moved it, so let me explain.  The OP assumes that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches both share the same dogmatic stance against artificial birth control (ABC).  We do not.  Yes, you will find many Orthodox bishops who agree with the pope of Rome that our Tradition condemns ABC as a grave sin, yet you will also find others who recognize ABC as less than ideal but will condone its use as a matter of economia.  When spoken by a Catholic, the belief that ABC is universally condemned presumes a view of ABC that is distinctively Roman and invites an Orthodox/RC debate that is not appropriate for [Orthodox] Faith Issues.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 05:40:57 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 721



« Reply #67 on: December 24, 2009, 09:02:31 AM »

It just means no one cares...
If that were true, no one would be posting.

Just sayin'.
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: 37,960



« Reply #68 on: December 24, 2009, 09:46:06 AM »

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.
Speak for yourself, Isa. Angry
I did.  As a matter of fact, I made it clear I did.

Just to be clear: I don't have any say in that. I've just seen how these types of threads go.

For the reasons you site, Humanae Vitae always gets involved in this discussion, which brings papal infallibility, although the Vatican isn't clear/consistent/sure of HV's infallibility.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 09:49:34 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #69 on: December 24, 2009, 10:27:52 AM »

And the thread is tied into its proper place.

Yes. But I would have avoided this kind of language if it was kept where I started it. I did not bring this issue up to be confrontational from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective. I wanted to talk the issue of NFP as a contraceptive through. There are many good people on this forum (yourself included, ialmisry) who have much to offer in the way of thoughtful Christian dialog on very important topics. I learn from dialog--especially from learned Christians with varying viewpoints.

Sparrow,

The argument is simpy too ethereal.  The dialogue is unreal and meaningless. The Catholic faithful have voted in their marital lives, overwhelmingly, that they are not interested in practising NFP.  Why would the Orthodox have any interest in it, except maybe as an abstruse academic topic of speculation removed from real life?

I disagree, Irish Hermit. I think the dialog has been very meaningful thus far. The Catholic faithful may have voted, but their votes don't count. The Catholic Church is not democratic--thank God.

It seems to me that the Orthodox should have an interest in it and based on the dialog so far, I'd say they do have an interest in it. No dialog which elicits and promotes healthy Christian thought is without merit.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #70 on: December 24, 2009, 10:33:03 AM »

Speak for yourself, Isa. Angry  Since I moved this thread, I don't think you're qualified to know exactly why I moved it, so let me explain.  The OP assumes that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches both share the same dogmatic stance against artificial birth control (ABC). We do not. 

I know that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches do not share the same dogmatic stance against artificial birth control. I apologize if that was implied in my OP.

Quote
Yes, you will find many Orthodox bishops who agree with the pope of Rome that our Tradition condemns ABC as a grave sin, yet you will also find others who recognize ABC as less than ideal but will condone its use as a matter of economia

Yes. This is why I made my OP on these forums instead of on a Catholic forum. I wanted dialog. I didn't want everyone to simply agree with me.

Quote
When spoken by a Catholic, the belief that ABC is universally condemned presumes a view of ABC that is distinctively Roman and invites an Orthodox/RC debate that is not appropriate for [Orthodox] Faith Issues.

I understand. I must admit I questioned whether I should have posted it here or in Faith Issues. You made the right decision to move it. Thank you.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #71 on: December 24, 2009, 10:37:21 AM »

For the reasons you site, Humanae Vitae always gets involved in this discussion, which brings papal infallibility, although the Vatican isn't clear/consistent/sure of HV's infallibility.

I'm not sure what the official stance is on the infallibility of Humanae Vitae, but its infallibility or lack thereof does not mean the Catholic faithful have a choice in accepting it. It is church doctrine which must be followed.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #72 on: December 24, 2009, 10:39:26 AM »

Since we mentioned Humanae Vitae, here's a link to it if anyone is interested in reading it.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
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: 37,960



« Reply #73 on: December 24, 2009, 10:57:39 AM »

Speak for yourself, Isa. Angry  Since I moved this thread, I don't think you're qualified to know exactly why I moved it, so let me explain.  The OP assumes that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches both share the same dogmatic stance against artificial birth control (ABC). We do not.  

I know that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches do not share the same dogmatic stance against artificial birth control. I apologize if that was implied in my OP.

Quote
Yes, you will find many Orthodox bishops who agree with the pope of Rome that our Tradition condemns ABC as a grave sin, yet you will also find others who recognize ABC as less than ideal but will condone its use as a matter of economia.  

Yes. This is why I made my OP on these forums instead of on a Catholic forum. I wanted dialog. I didn't want everyone to simply agree with me.
Oh, I've seen on Catholic forums that everyone would simply agree with you, as Father Ambrose has shown.  I'm with the Vatican's Magisterium, but then I'm not under it.

For the reasons you site, Humanae Vitae always gets involved in this discussion, which brings papal infallibility, although the Vatican isn't clear/consistent/sure of HV's infallibility.

I'm not sure what the official stance is on the infallibility of Humanae Vitae, but its infallibility or lack thereof does not mean the Catholic faithful have a choice in accepting it. It is church doctrine which must be followed.

This is the problem the Vatican has with selling us Pastor Aeternus.  One the one hand, we are told that somehow we are deficient because, allegedly, we have no mechanism to define and settle dogma. So we will bring up contradictions between popes (e.g. Popes Agatho, Martin Leo II and Honorios over Monotheletism), proclamations the Vatican is not so proud of now (e.g. Unam Sanctam), etc. and we are told that not everything the pope says is infallible.  So, the question is then which are and which aren't, and there is no consensus on the other side of which are, but then we are told it doesn't matter, because you must accept (assent of the will I think is the phrase) anything the Magisterium puts forth.  It doesn't seem Pastor Aeternus solves anything, and causes more problems.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 11:08:53 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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: 37,960



« Reply #74 on: December 24, 2009, 11:09:44 AM »

I see that someone has marked this thread as "baby daddy."  Why?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,091


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #75 on: December 24, 2009, 11:42:21 AM »

I see that someone has marked this thread as "baby daddy."  Why?

I'd ask the same question, but I'm sure the person's honest answer would be "because I'm juvenile."  I've deleted the tag.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #76 on: December 24, 2009, 12:24:16 PM »

Question about NFP:


1) What if you don't have regular cycles that can be determined


2) At what point is contraception allowed, if ever? When pregnancy can lead to the death of the mother? When the child would be brought into a world where it could not be cared for or that the parents couldn't provide for?

I guess my biggest issue is how do you take the awesome responsibility that comes with having a child if you cannot physically afford to provide for its basic needs? For the record, I agree with OzGeorge that NFP is still birth control, just a natural form of it rather than an artificial one.

I'm just asking, not trying to fight or advocate for either side.

-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,091


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #77 on: December 24, 2009, 01:43:08 PM »

For the record, I agree with OzGeorge that NFP is still birth control, just a natural form of it rather than an artificial one.

I would actually argue that NFP is only "natural" in that it doesn't use synthetic materials; otherwise, there is nothing "natural" about planning when a couple is going to have marital-type relations based on the woman's cycle (for the most part).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #78 on: December 24, 2009, 02:44:26 PM »

For the record, I agree with OzGeorge that NFP is still birth control, just a natural form of it rather than an artificial one.

I would actually argue that NFP is only "natural" in that it doesn't use synthetic materials; otherwise, there is nothing "natural" about planning when a couple is going to have marital-type relations based on the woman's cycle (for the most part).

Thanks for clarifying my point Fr. George, I meant natural as in no synthetic materials.

-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #79 on: December 24, 2009, 04:21:04 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, this is all to say that sex must be open to the possibility of life, and that is the standard to be lived by. That is why contraception, NFP, and homosexual sex are all wrong.

If a couple isn't having sex with the possibility of pregnancy completely open (unlike with NFP, where the possibility is low or nil), they should abstain. But playing the calendar game closes off the possibility for conception just as much as using synthetic means, so it's essentially the same thing. Am I understanding this right?
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 04:22:50 PM by bogdan » 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: 37,960



« Reply #80 on: December 24, 2009, 04:27:56 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, this is all to say that sex must be open to the possibility of life, and that is the standard to be lived by. That is why contraception, NFP, and homosexual sex are all wrong.

If a couple isn't having sex with the possibility of pregnancy completely open (unlike with NFP, where the possibility is low or nil), they should abstain. But playing the calendar game closes off the possibility for conception just as much as using synthetic means, so it's essentially the same thing. Am I understanding this right?
The Vatican would say no, you are not understanding right. Which is part of our disagreement.

Btw, unless you have sex when conception is optimal, no sex (at least vaginal) is going to be completely open to pregnancy.
Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #81 on: December 24, 2009, 05:07:12 PM »

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?

NFP is OK but it is really a dead duck in the water.  People are just not interested in using it.    The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reported a few years back that they estimate that only between 2% and 3% of childbearing Catholic couples use  it.  The remaining 97% use methods of contraception forbidden by their  Church and seen as gravely sinful. 

So I would say, being very pragmatic, that if the Vatican with its very sophisticated educational techniques on family planning cannot persuade more than 3% of its married couples to use NFP you won't find too many Orthodox using it.

-oOo-

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/prolife/article_05.asp

"You can probably guess-timate that 2 or 3 percent of Catholic women use it [Natural Family Planning]," says Theresa Notare, assistant director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."



Father, my wife and I were using NFP and our timing was obviously off... because we are now expecting a baby boy next month.  laugh

But we are thrilled to be having a baby boy and we felt good using NFP, even if it didn't prevent pregnancy we both felt that we were open to it even if we were using the wisdom God has given us to 'avoid' it's possibility without 'completely' frustrating it.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
EofK
Mrs. Y
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 3,976


lolcat addict


« Reply #82 on: December 24, 2009, 05:09:48 PM »

^Congratulations!
Logged

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,076


Scheherazade


« Reply #83 on: December 25, 2009, 01:41:33 PM »

Why can't you just admit you are practising birth control (and not very effective birth control).

Perhaps that is precisely why it is permissible.  Wink

(it doesn't thwart God's will too much)  Grin


Yours in Christ
Joe
Logged

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frédéric Bastiat
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,076


Scheherazade


« Reply #84 on: December 25, 2009, 01:51:58 PM »

The facts are crossing fingers has nothing to do with reality. What does matter is God has built into humans natural cycles which allow and prevent the conception of life at certain times. We also know that not everyone can or should have children non-stop every nine months. So we have a choice, either use God's own built in cycles for regulating births or we can circumvent God's design all together and use artificial birth control whenever you feel like it.

Do you realize how ridiculous and convoluted your arguments sound?

It's ok to use NFP to prevent pregnancy because the couple has to suffer and "sacrifice" (in other words, go through enough pain) in order to practice it, and that God built into humanity a natural schedule during which time it's ok to practice a form contraception.

What if I had to walk 5 miles (sacrifice and suffering) to the nearest drug store to pick up a pack of condoms and if I could only afford them when I get paid once a month (a schedule). Would that suffice to fulfill my moral obligations?


Yours in Christ
Joe
« Last Edit: December 25, 2009, 01:52:49 PM by Paisius » Logged

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frédéric Bastiat
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #85 on: December 26, 2009, 11:30:23 AM »

The facts are crossing fingers has nothing to do with reality. What does matter is God has built into humans natural cycles which allow and prevent the conception of life at certain times. We also know that not everyone can or should have children non-stop every nine months. So we have a choice, either use God's own built in cycles for regulating births or we can circumvent God's design all together and use artificial birth control whenever you feel like it.

Do you realize how ridiculous and convoluted your arguments sound?

It's ok to use NFP to prevent pregnancy because the couple has to suffer and "sacrifice" (in other words, go through enough pain) in order to practice it, and that God built into humanity a natural schedule during which time it's ok to practice a form contraception.

What if I had to walk 5 miles (sacrifice and suffering) to the nearest drug store to pick up a pack of condoms and if I could only afford them when I get paid once a month (a schedule). Would that suffice to fulfill my moral obligations?


Yours in Christ
Joe

Well, no. I guess I didn't realize how "ridiculous and convoluted [my] arguments sound[ed]." But considering you seem to be missing the point, they must be at the very least confusing.

Having to go up to the store and buy condoms because you ran out is certainly much different than not being able to do anything but abstain from marital relations because your wife's ovulating. I think you could agree with that, right?

Here's why I think the two are different.
1) I could just plan better and would have no need to brave the elements to go to the store.
2) A condom is a man made invention.
3) A condom prevents conception even when a woman is ovulating which is precisely the only time she can get pregnant.
4) When a woman is ovulating is the time she is most likely to desire sexual relations.
5) Waiting because I don't have money or have to walk to the store is entirely within my own hands.
6) Waiting because my wife is ovulating is entirely within God's hands. I can choose not to have relations, but I cannot chose not to get her pregnant.
7) A woman's natural cycle is God's invention.

To summarize my view point...
A) It is not simply the sacrifice that makes NFP ok. It is because the sacrifice is submitting to God's own natural plan. Running out of condoms is certainly not that kind of "sacrifice"--I would argue that it is not sacrificial at all.
B) NFP is not supposed to be used as a form of contraception anyway. It may be used to space births and may be used to avoid pregnancy for grave reasons, but it may not be used simply to have sex without the consequences of conceiving a child for selfish or petty reasons.

I hope that clarifies my arguments some. If not, please let me know and I will try to clarify further. Even if you don't agree with my arguments, I'd still like for you to understand my arguments.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #86 on: December 26, 2009, 11:59:39 AM »

The facts are crossing fingers has nothing to do with reality. What does matter is God has built into humans natural cycles which allow and prevent the conception of life at certain times. We also know that not everyone can or should have children non-stop every nine months. So we have a choice, either use God's own built in cycles for regulating births or we can circumvent God's design all together and use artificial birth control whenever you feel like it.

Do you realize how ridiculous and convoluted your arguments sound?

It's ok to use NFP to prevent pregnancy because the couple has to suffer and "sacrifice" (in other words, go through enough pain) in order to practice it, and that God built into humanity a natural schedule during which time it's ok to practice a form contraception.

What if I had to walk 5 miles (sacrifice and suffering) to the nearest drug store to pick up a pack of condoms and if I could only afford them when I get paid once a month (a schedule). Would that suffice to fulfill my moral obligations?


Yours in Christ
Joe

I think it's a bit dramatic to say not having sex is "suffering". If it is, then I'd say it's well on the way to being a passion, IMHO. The point of all this is not to inflict suffering on ourselves, but to free ourselves from the need to have sex for non-procreative reasons. That's not to say sex is bad, but the need to have it just to be happy is bad.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2009, 12:07:02 PM by bogdan » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #87 on: December 26, 2009, 12:05:43 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, this is all to say that sex must be open to the possibility of life, and that is the standard to be lived by. That is why contraception, NFP, and homosexual sex are all wrong.

If a couple isn't having sex with the possibility of pregnancy completely open (unlike with NFP, where the possibility is low or nil), they should abstain. But playing the calendar game closes off the possibility for conception just as much as using synthetic means, so it's essentially the same thing. Am I understanding this right?
The Vatican would say no, you are not understanding right. Which is part of our disagreement.

Btw, unless you have sex when conception is optimal, no sex (at least vaginal) is going to be completely open to pregnancy.

Granted. I was merely speaking generally. I suppose the intention comes into play - if you're doing timing sex with the intention of avoiding pregnancy, I would say it's wrong. Same with synthetic means of birth control - they aren't wrong because they're synthetic, but because they're used with the intention of avoiding pregnancy.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #88 on: December 26, 2009, 02:00:25 PM »

I don't want to seem like I'm piling on here, but I did want to add an additional 2 cents on something. I'm not an expert on these issues, but from what I have read, the Fathers did not make distinctions such as artificial versus natural, passive versus active, etc. For the Fathers who spoke on the subject, when they mentioned natural birth control methods (e.g. the rhythm method), they condemned them.

All Fathers who spoke on the subject seemed to feel that they had to justify sexual relations--you couldn't just have them for the sake of having them, or just for pleasure. Not all Fathers limited the justification to procreation, of course. A fair amount mentioned Paul's reasoning of having sexual relations to help avoid lust, for example. But for all that I've seen, the Fathers who spoke on the subject considered it improper (and some would have even said sinful) to have sex while knowing that the wife could not get pregnant.

This is not to say that people always listened to the Fathers, especially the more rigorous Fathers, on such matters. Both Sts. Jerome and Augustine (and perhaps others) mentioned how their views were not well received. And as I said earlier in the thread, I disagree with them as well. But if you want to strictly (some would use the word faithfully) follow the Fathers, I think you'd need to avoid all methods (including natural ones) that would allow a couple to have sexual relations while having taken steps to descrease the chances of conception. In essence, the Fathers seem to have taught that you are supposed to trust God in this matter.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 628


militantsparrow
« Reply #89 on: December 26, 2009, 04:30:04 PM »

I don't want to seem like I'm piling on here, but I did want to add an additional 2 cents on something. I'm not an expert on these issues, but from what I have read, the Fathers did not make distinctions such as artificial versus natural, passive versus active, etc. For the Fathers who spoke on the subject, when they mentioned natural birth control methods (e.g. the rhythm method), they condemned them.

All Fathers who spoke on the subject seemed to feel that they had to justify sexual relations--you couldn't just have them for the sake of having them, or just for pleasure. Not all Fathers limited the justification to procreation, of course. A fair amount mentioned Paul's reasoning of having sexual relations to help avoid lust, for example. But for all that I've seen, the Fathers who spoke on the subject considered it improper (and some would have even said sinful) to have sex while knowing that the wife could not get pregnant.

This is not to say that people always listened to the Fathers, especially the more rigorous Fathers, on such matters. Both Sts. Jerome and Augustine (and perhaps others) mentioned how their views were not well received. And as I said earlier in the thread, I disagree with them as well. But if you want to strictly (some would use the word faithfully) follow the Fathers, I think you'd need to avoid all methods (including natural ones) that would allow a couple to have sexual relations while having taken steps to descrease the chances of conception. In essence, the Fathers seem to have taught that you are supposed to trust God in this matter.

Asteriktos,
I think these are great points. There a number of fathers who specifically use words like "seed" and "poisons" and such. There are less, as far as I know, who say things such as Clement: "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

As a Catholic, the teaching of the Church is good enough for me. But to try to answer you question, some have said on this board that the ancient understanding was that each male emission contained human life. We know now that this is not true, but if this is indeed what the father's thought (from a scientific standpoint) then what they say makes sense.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2009, 04:32:16 PM by militantsparrow » Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Tags: NFP contraception birth control 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.3 seconds with 117 queries.