OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 03:08:48 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodoxy's view on contraception?  (Read 25760 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Pheonix
Posts: 2,362



« on: March 08, 2010, 09:18:38 PM »

Hello, all.  this last Sunday my priest gave a sermon on lust.  he said that the church demands a monogamos, heterosexual union.  but he also said that when we participate in intercourse, we should only doso with the intention of pro-creation.  this does not make sence, as I thought that the churchpermits contraception.  would someone please explain this?
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,142


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2010, 09:23:44 PM »

I would ask why would your Priest give a sermon on lust on the third Sunday of Lent, the Elevation of the Holy Cross?   Huh
Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Pheonix
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2010, 09:26:05 PM »

I would ask why would your Priest give a sermon on lust on the third Sunday of Lent, the Elevation of the Holy Cross?   Huh

that struck me as rather odd aswell.  he said he was giving a series on the seven vices.  I went to a service in another town that same day, and the priest said "and you all should of heard about the cross in today's sermon".  he then went on to tell an amusing story about a bublee bee, lol.

Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2010, 09:29:54 PM »

Yes, you should have heard about the Cross. Some people would just rather talk about sex....
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Pheonix
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2010, 09:31:33 PM »

but what exactly is the Orthodox Christian view on contraception?
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2010, 09:54:54 PM »

Hello, all.  this last Sunday my priest gave a sermon on lust.  he said that the church demands a monogamos, heterosexual union.  but he also said that when we participate in intercourse, we should only doso with the intention of pro-creation.  this does not make sence, as I thought that the churchpermits contraception.  would someone please explain this?

The bishops of the OCA deal with Birth Control in this letter to the flock

http://www.oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=4
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,142


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2010, 12:30:03 AM »

I would ask why would your Priest give a sermon on lust on the third Sunday of Lent, the Elevation of the Holy Cross?   Huh

that struck me as rather odd aswell.  he said he was giving a series on the seven vices.  I went to a service in another town that same day, and the priest said "and you all should of heard about the cross in today's sermon".  he then went on to tell an amusing story about a bublee bee, lol.

How can you attend two Services in different towns in the same day, assuming that one happens to be Orthodox?  Something is not adding up here.   Huh  I know some Assemblies of God Churches start their services at 7 PM and they don't follow the Orthodox Christian Calendar.   Smiley
« Last Edit: March 09, 2010, 12:30:37 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Pheonix
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2010, 12:33:41 AM »

I would ask why would your Priest give a sermon on lust on the third Sunday of Lent, the Elevation of the Holy Cross?   Huh

that struck me as rather odd aswell.  he said he was giving a series on the seven vices.  I went to a service in another town that same day, and the priest said "and you all should of heard about the cross in today's sermon".  he then went on to tell an amusing story about a bublee bee, lol.

How can you attend two Services in different towns in the same day, assuming that one happens to be Orthodox?  Something is not adding up here.   Huh  I know some Assemblies of God Churches start their services at 7 PM and they don't follow the Orthodox Christian Calendar.   Smiley

we have a thing called "mission vespers" on sunday nights tis month.  we attend our regular church on Sunday morning for liturgy, and attend a service in another town, a vespers service with a sermon, at about 5-6pm.  it's really very fun.  I had no idea that I had so many Orthodox brothers an sisters in Colorado.  quite a learning experience.
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,142


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2010, 12:51:34 AM »

I would ask why would your Priest give a sermon on lust on the third Sunday of Lent, the Elevation of the Holy Cross?   Huh

that struck me as rather odd aswell.  he said he was giving a series on the seven vices.  I went to a service in another town that same day, and the priest said "and you all should of heard about the cross in today's sermon".  he then went on to tell an amusing story about a bublee bee, lol.

How can you attend two Services in different towns in the same day, assuming that one happens to be Orthodox?  Something is not adding up here.   Huh  I know some Assemblies of God Churches start their services at 7 PM and they don't follow the Orthodox Christian Calendar.   Smiley

we have a thing called "mission vespers" on sunday nights tis month.  we attend our regular church on Sunday morning for liturgy, and attend a service in another town, a vespers service with a sermon, at about 5-6pm.  it's really very fun.  I had no idea that I had so many Orthodox brothers an sisters in Colorado.  quite a learning experience.

OK ... You attended two Orthodox Churches on the 3rd Sunday of Lent; the Morning Sermon didn't talk about the Cross and the Vespers sermon ... technically speaking, didn't have to talk about the Cross.  I realize that you are young; However, can you differentiate between your "home" Church vs. attending another Orthodox Church?

Forgive me if I'm not addressing your topic on what the Church has said about contraception (which has been discussed many times on this forum).  My concern is that you're listening to a number of different messages from a number of different Orthodox Churches which is creating confusion in your mind (please correct me if I'm wrong).   angel
Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Pheonix
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2010, 12:55:54 AM »

I would ask why would your Priest give a sermon on lust on the third Sunday of Lent, the Elevation of the Holy Cross?   Huh

that struck me as rather odd aswell.  he said he was giving a series on the seven vices.  I went to a service in another town that same day, and the priest said "and you all should of heard about the cross in today's sermon".  he then went on to tell an amusing story about a bublee bee, lol.

How can you attend two Services in different towns in the same day, assuming that one happens to be Orthodox?  Something is not adding up here.   Huh  I know some Assemblies of God Churches start their services at 7 PM and they don't follow the Orthodox Christian Calendar.   Smiley

we have a thing called "mission vespers" on sunday nights tis month.  we attend our regular church on Sunday morning for liturgy, and attend a service in another town, a vespers service with a sermon, at about 5-6pm.  it's really very fun.  I had no idea that I had so many Orthodox brothers an sisters in Colorado.  quite a learning experience.

OK ... You attended two Orthodox Churches on the 3rd Sunday of Lent; the Morning Sermon didn't talk about the Cross and the Vespers sermon ... technically speaking, didn't have to talk about the Cross.  I realize that you are young; However, can you differentiate between your "home" Church vs. attending another Orthodox Church?

Forgive me if I'm not addressing your topic on what the Church has said about contraception (which has been discussed many times on this forum).  My concern is that you're listening to a number of different messages from a number of different Orthodox Churches which is creating confusion in your mind (please correct me if I'm wrong).   angel

I know just what you mean.  in fact, I was disgussing this very thing with my priest's mother.  my home church, really does feel like home.  ours is the only one I'v seen that has icons hung, not painted on the walls.  ours is also the oldest building I've been to.  the two different topics of the day, however, do confuse me.  I'll adress this with my spiritual father at our next catechism class.
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,142


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2010, 01:01:21 AM »

I know just what you mean.  in fact, I was disgussing this very thing with my priest's mother.  my home church, really does feel like home.  ours is the only one I'v seen that has icons hung, not painted on the walls.  ours is also the oldest building I've been to.  the two different topics of the day, however, do confuse me.  I'll adress this with my spiritual father at our next catechism class.

Your spiritual father will help greatly even if he was the one preaching about lust last Sunday.   Undecided

With lust, you can put that burden at the foot of Christ's cross if that is a weight you can't bear by yourself.

Whether you attend an OCA, Greek, Antiochian, Western Rite Antiochian, or other Orthodox Church, you will see some similarities and some differences.  You may not understand them, yet, as you learn about Orthodoxy, you will see many similarities in faith and few outward differences like language.   Smiley

Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Pheonix
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2010, 01:05:42 AM »

I know just what you mean.  in fact, I was disgussing this very thing with my priest's mother.  my home church, really does feel like home.  ours is the only one I'v seen that has icons hung, not painted on the walls.  ours is also the oldest building I've been to.  the two different topics of the day, however, do confuse me.  I'll adress this with my spiritual father at our next catechism class.

Your spiritual father will help greatly even if he was the one preaching about lust last Sunday.   Undecided

With lust, you can put that burden at the foot of Christ's cross if that is a weight you can't bear by yourself.

Whether you attend an OCA, Greek, Antiochian, Western Rite Antiochian, or other Orthodox Church, you will see some similarities and some differences.  You may not understand them, yet, as you learn about Orthodoxy, you will see many similarities in faith and few outward differences like language.   Smiley



I know just what you mean.  my church is an OCA church, aswell are two of the churches I've traveled to.  I attended a Greek church.  it was beautiful...but it sure was a bit different.  instead of saying "Lord have mercy" we also said (I apologize to the Greeks in advance for my bad spelling) "Gediason"".  it was wonderful!
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,859



« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2010, 01:23:58 AM »

instead of saying "Lord have mercy" we also said (I apologize to the Greeks in advance for my bad spelling) "Gediason"".

Close.  It's "Kyrie Eleison", and it's the most universal Christian prayer throughout the world.
Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Pheonix
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2010, 01:27:15 AM »

instead of saying "Lord have mercy" we also said (I apologize to the Greeks in advance for my bad spelling) "Gediason"".

Close.  It's "Kyrie Eleison", and it's the most universal Christian prayer throughout the world.

thanks so much for the correction!

how do you say "Christ is risen"?
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2010, 01:53:23 AM »

Hello, all.  this last Sunday my priest gave a sermon on lust.  he said that the church demands a monogamos, heterosexual union.  but he also said that when we participate in intercourse, we should only doso with the intention of pro-creation.  this does not make sence, as I thought that the churchpermits contraception.  would someone please explain this?
The view I read quite recently on this forum is that the Orthodox Church neither permits nor forbids artificial birth control.  In short, we recognize the ideal that all marital relations should be open to the possibility of procreation, which makes us hesitant to permit birth control as though it were something good.  But our priests and bishops also realize that we live in a fallen world where it may be wise to permit birth control as a concession to human weakness or the pressure of outside circumstances in order to not drive a couple away from Christ and the Church.  Either way, the decision to permit or forbid the use of contraceptives is a decision a pastor must make for each individual couple in consultation with that couple and based on their needs.  There is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to this matter.

I may not be explaining our position all that well, but this is the gist of what I understand it to be.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2010, 01:53:48 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2010, 04:06:45 AM »

The bishops of the OCA deal with Birth Control in this letter to the flock

http://www.oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=4

MP's document dealing, among other things, with contraception is also worth reading: http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx (see: point XII. 3.).
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2010, 06:03:22 AM »

There is a consensus among the Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian and Antiochian Churches (I cannot speak for the other Churches since I have never had the opportunity to become acquainted with their teaching on this matter.)

The above Orthodox Churches allow contraception when

1.  it is non-abortive

2.  it is for grave and justifiable reasons

3.  it is for a limited time
.........(although health consideration may influence this)

4  it is used with the blessing of the parish priest or spiritual father or mother
.........(although this is not strictly necessary)

Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,627



« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2010, 08:13:37 AM »

There is a consensus among the Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian and Antiochian Churches (I cannot speak for the other Churches since I have never had the opportunity to become acquainted with their teaching on this matter.)

Are there any online documents about the stances of Greek, Serbian, Romanian and Antiochian Churches, Father? Not that I'd doubt your word but I'd still like to be able to point out more specific source than a random message in a random forum if asked.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2010, 08:14:35 AM by Alpo » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2010, 08:25:46 AM »

There is a consensus among the Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian and Antiochian Churches (I cannot speak for the other Churches since I have never had the opportunity to become acquainted with their teaching on this matter.)

Are there any online documents about the stances of Greek, Serbian, Romanian and Antiochian Churches, Father? Not that I'd doubt your word but I'd still like to be able to point out more specific source than a random message in a random forum if asked.

Dear Alpo,

The Orthodox Churches don't tend to put out statements such as the Vatican does -papal encyclicals, bulls, curial statements, etc. But in the year 2000 the Russian Orthodox Church felt the need to proclaim some basic Christian principles for the guidance of the Russian people after the country's depressing 70 years of repression by the atheistic powers. A Millennial Synod which gathered all of Russia' bishops was held in Moscow and it promulgated a major statement on the Church and modern society "Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church."

The Russian Orthodox Church allows non-abortive contraception and speaks of it in the Millennial Statement from the Synod of Bishops.

BASES OF THE SOCIAL CONCEPT OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

Section XII.3 of the 2000 Synodal document

"BASES OF THE SOCIAL CONCEPT
OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH"
http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/
also here
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/the-orthodox-church-and-society/introduction

-oOo-
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,627



« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2010, 10:59:25 AM »

The Orthodox Churches don't tend to put out statements such as the Vatican does -papal encyclicals, bulls, curial statements, etc.

Yes, I was aware of that and that's the very reason for my inquiry. I became to wonder whether I've been wrong. Apparently not. Well, thanks for the answer anyway. Tongue
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2010, 11:39:27 AM »

Hello, all.  this last Sunday my priest gave a sermon on lust.  he said that the church demands a monogamos, heterosexual union.  but he also said that when we participate in intercourse, we should only doso with the intention of pro-creation.  this does not make sence, as I thought that the churchpermits contraception.  would someone please explain this?

Your priest is simply wrong.
Logged

Love never fails.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2010, 12:47:33 PM »

Hello, all.  this last Sunday my priest gave a sermon on lust.  he said that the church demands a monogamos, heterosexual union.  but he also said that when we participate in intercourse, we should only doso with the intention of pro-creation.  this does not make sence, as I thought that the churchpermits contraception.  would someone please explain this?

Your priest is simply wrong.
How so?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2010, 01:19:48 PM »

Hello, all.  this last Sunday my priest gave a sermon on lust.  he said that the church demands a monogamos, heterosexual union.  but he also said that when we participate in intercourse, we should only doso with the intention of pro-creation.  this does not make sence, as I thought that the churchpermits contraception.  would someone please explain this?

Your priest is simply wrong.
How so?

Teaching that married couples should have sex only with the intention to procreate.
Logged

Love never fails.
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Pheonix
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2010, 07:02:19 PM »

Hello, all.  this last Sunday my priest gave a sermon on lust.  he said that the church demands a monogamos, heterosexual union.  but he also said that when we participate in intercourse, we should only doso with the intention of pro-creation.  this does not make sence, as I thought that the churchpermits contraception.  would someone please explain this?

Your priest is simply wrong.
How so?

Teaching that married couples should have sex only with the intention to procreate.

I really would't go so far as to say he's wrong as he is a very intellegent and holy man.  this is exactly what has confused me!  if the church says that using contraception is OK,thatn there is clearly no intention of procreation there.  I really need to ask him about this.
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #24 on: March 11, 2010, 08:33:02 PM »

Your priest is simply wrong.
How so?

Teaching that married couples should have sex only with the intention to procreate.

Such a teaching seems to be not compatible with Orthodox teleology.
Quote
In Orthodoxy, the telos of a given act . . . is always to be subject to the telos of the person. Likewise, within Orthodoxy the telos of the person is not determined by the perceived telos of the acts appropriate to that person. Orthodoxy is not bottom up in its anthropology. Thus the logic: sex is meant, finally, for procreation; as a married man I am to have sex; thus my sexual activity is meant, finally, for procreation - does not work in Orthodoxy. Within Orthodoxy the "telos" of the given act is derivative of the telos of the person or persons involved. I am finally meant for salvation. My wife is finally meant for salvation. As two who have become one our marriage is to serve us as we are , finally, being saved. Sex within our marriage is to serve our telos. We are not meant to serve the "telos" of a given act. Thus God's soteriological personalism frees us from natural determinisms. This does not mean that we ignore or reject nature, quite the contrary. God intends to save me as a man, and to save my wife as a woman, and our salvation must be worked out in its proper course. But my sex and what is natural to it is meant to serve me, I am not meant to serve it.
Source: http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html



. . .the church says that using contraception is OK. . .

That's oversimplification.
Quote
The control of the conception of a child by any means is . . . condemned by the Church if it means the lack of fulfillment in the family, the hatred of children, the fear of responsibility, the desire for sexual pleasure as purely fleshly, lustful satisfaction, etc.

Again, however, married people practicing birth control are not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives are not entirely unworthy. Here again, however, such a couple cannot pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God.
Source: http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=147&SID=3
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2010, 09:57:13 PM »

i dont know if there is any "official" stance, but your priest seems to be pretty in line with all the earliest Fathers and theologians
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2010, 10:31:55 PM »

i dont know if there is any "official" stance, but your priest seems to be pretty in line with all the earliest Fathers and theologians

Out of line really....

Although we do not have an extensive amount of material from the Fathers on this topic we do have enough to know that they had two requisites..

The conjugal act must take place with the

1. intention to conceive

2. possibility to conceive.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2010, 12:27:22 PM »

^ Is that so? The material Michael quoted from Orthodox sources seems to say just the opposite. Why should we then believe you at your word with no sources to back up what you're saying?
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2010, 12:33:04 PM »

i dont know if there is any "official" stance, but your priest seems to be pretty in line with all the earliest Fathers and theologians

Out of line really....

Although we do not have an extensive amount of material from the Fathers on this topic we do have enough to know that they had two requisites..

The conjugal act must take place with the

1. intention to conceive

2. possibility to conceive.

So, no woman in menopause should engage in sexual acts with her husband? No pregnant woman, even at very early stages of pregnancy? No lactating woman? No woman who underwent hysterectomy? No woman (or man) who is as androgine?
Logged

Love never fails.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2010, 12:47:08 PM »

So, no woman in menopause should engage in sexual acts with her husband? No pregnant woman, even at very early stages of pregnancy? No lactating woman? No woman who underwent hysterectomy? No woman (or man) who is as androgine? 

Women in menopause: Anna, & Elizabeth, & Sarah.  It's possible.
Pregnant women: Actually, the Fathers say that the man should abstain from sex with his wife during pregnancy, because they thought it could lead to miscarriage (and if it did, then the man & woman would have a penance for doing things that led to their child's death).  Only now do we know that this is generally not the case - so I don't know what our position is.
Lactating women: our doctors told us that indeed it was possible for a lactating woman to get pregnant.
Hysterectomy: obvious.
Androgine: I was actually hearing on the radio yesterday about an androgine who has kids.  I think, though, this is quite rare, no (that they can have children)?
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 12:47:24 PM by Fr. George » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2010, 12:51:19 PM »

Lactating women: our doctors told us that indeed it was possible for a lactating woman to get pregnant.

I can personally attest to that.
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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2010, 12:53:30 PM »

Hysterectomy: obvious.

Father, obvious what? No intercourse, forbidden?
Logged

Love never fails.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2010, 01:06:44 PM »

Hysterectomy: obvious.
Father, obvious what? No intercourse, forbidden?

No - in the context of my post, I was giving examples of how situations you presented as being unable to conceive were not so.  Hysterectomy, however, is an obvious "no, one can't conceive."  I'm staying out of the conversation this time (viz a viz contraception) because (a) people don't listen to good advice if it doesn't agree with their preconceived notions, and (b) this is a dicey issue to begin with.
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.
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2010, 01:49:32 PM »

Women in menopause: Anna, & Elizabeth, & Sarah.  It's possible.
Pregnant women: Actually, the Fathers say that the man should abstain from sex with his wife during pregnancy, because they thought it could lead to miscarriage (and if it did, then the man & woman would have a penance for doing things that led to their child's death).  Only now do we know that this is generally not the case - so I don't know what our position is.
Lactating women: our doctors told us that indeed it was possible for a lactating woman to get pregnant.
Hysterectomy: obvious.
Androgine: I was actually hearing on the radio yesterday about an androgine who has kids.  I think, though, this is quite rare, no (that they can have children)?

On a recent trip to the doctor I had to fill out the usual paperwork that goes along with a doctor's visit. In the Medical History section it asks whether or not the patient is using any forms of Birth Control. The form specifically states "Nursing is NOT a form of contraception!"  laugh  laugh
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2010, 02:08:26 PM »

Hysterectomy: obvious.
Father, obvious what? No intercourse, forbidden?

No - in the context of my post, I was giving examples of how situations you presented as being unable to conceive were not so.  Hysterectomy, however, is an obvious "no, one can't conceive."  I'm staying out of the conversation this time (viz a viz contraception) because (a) people don't listen to good advice if it doesn't agree with their preconceived notions, and (b) this is a dicey issue to begin with.

Actually, she can conceive (it has happened), but can't carry to term, for obvious reasons.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2010, 04:59:32 PM »

^ Is that so? The material Michael quoted from Orthodox sources seems to say just the opposite. Why should we then believe you at your word with no sources to back up what you're saying?

Dear Professor,

Absolutely no need to believe me of course.

I am too lazy to resubmit the sources and citations.  They are in other contraception threads.

But by all means go with Michael's opposite sources if he has submitted such.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 05:01:28 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2010, 05:07:09 PM »

i dont know if there is any "official" stance, but your priest seems to be pretty in line with all the earliest Fathers and theologians

Out of line really....

Although we do not have an extensive amount of material from the Fathers on this topic we do have enough to know that they had two requisites..

The conjugal act must take place with the

1. intention to conceive

2. possibility to conceive.

So, no woman in menopause should engage in sexual acts with her husband? No pregnant woman, even at very early stages of pregnancy? No lactating woman? No woman who underwent hysterectomy? No woman (or man) who is as androgine?


As I have piointed out we have little material from the Fathers on this matter but what we do have shows that they were sharply against sexual intercourse in all the situations you have described.   They saw them as simply an exercise in lust.

The one exception to the Fathers' opinion is Saint John Chrysostom who speaks of what we would now call unitive sex as being of at least equal value with procreative sex.

Citations are already in the Forum's archives many times over.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2010, 05:13:57 PM »

i dont know if there is any "official" stance, but your priest seems to be pretty in line with all the earliest Fathers and theologians

Out of line really....

Although we do not have an extensive amount of material from the Fathers on this topic we do have enough to know that they had two requisites..

The conjugal act must take place with the

1. intention to conceive

2. possibility to conceive.

So, no woman in menopause should engage in sexual acts with her husband? No pregnant woman, even at very early stages of pregnancy? No lactating woman? No woman who underwent hysterectomy? No woman (or man) who is as androgine?


As I have piointed out we have little material from the Fathers on this matter but what we do have shows that they were sharply against sexual intercourse in all the situations you have described.   They saw them as simply an exercise in lust.

The one exception to the Fathers' opinion is Saint John Chrysostom who speaks of what we would now call unitive sex as being of at least equal value with procreative sex.

Citations are already in the Forum's archives many times over.

Thank you, Father. To me, it's just sad. I cannot understand, how one can not value, appreciate unitive sex in marriage and consider it in ANY case an "exercise in lust." That's dehumanizing... For yet another time, I cannot but think that Fathers were, in some respects, strange people, to put it mildly.

I wonder, did they (the Fathers) even understand that there is a GIVING aspect in marital conjugation, not merely receiving? And that the giving is, in the case of couples that live together long enough and truly love each other, indeed the most precious, unique, un-replaceable giving of the gift of oneself?

Probably not...
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 05:14:26 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #38 on: March 12, 2010, 06:41:32 PM »

i dont know if there is any "official" stance, but your priest seems to be pretty in line with all the earliest Fathers and theologians

Out of line really....

Although we do not have an extensive amount of material from the Fathers on this topic we do have enough to know that they had two requisites..

The conjugal act must take place with the

1. intention to conceive

2. possibility to conceive.

So, no woman in menopause should engage in sexual acts with her husband? No pregnant woman, even at very early stages of pregnancy? No lactating woman? No woman who underwent hysterectomy? No woman (or man) who is as androgine?


As I have piointed out we have little material from the Fathers on this matter but what we do have shows that they were sharply against sexual intercourse in all the situations you have described.   They saw them as simply an exercise in lust.

The one exception to the Fathers' opinion is Saint John Chrysostom who speaks of what we would now call unitive sex as being of at least equal value with procreative sex.

Citations are already in the Forum's archives many times over.
So...will you or won't you provide sources for the claims you made that these unnamed Fathers said?
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 06:41:53 PM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #39 on: March 12, 2010, 06:49:29 PM »

Professor, one of our priests was browsing the site.  Until a few years ago he was resident in Washington.  He says he was astounded to see on OC.net a picture of Senator Chris Dodd who is not only a Roman Catholic politician but he is also a pro-abortion senator.  Apparently he is in favour of that most evil and gruesome ways of killing children - induced partial birth followed by killing with scissors stabbed into the base of the skull.  Now that I know that it kind of makes me gag to see your avatar.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #40 on: March 12, 2010, 06:56:46 PM »

Professor, one of our priests was browsing the site.  Until a few years ago he was resident in Washington.  He says he was astounded to see on OC.net a picture of Senator Chris Dodd who is not only a Roman Catholic politician but he is also a pro-abortion senator.  Apparently he is in favour of that most evil and gruesome ways of killing children - induced partial birth followed by killing with scissors stabbed into the base of the skull.  Now that I know that it kind of makes me gag to see your avatar.
Hmm...I see. I won't discuss politics here, but I will say that I find your summation of the Senator to be rather one-sided. I assure you that he is my current avatar for reasons completely unrelated to abortion. If you want to know my reasoning, PM me; it's rather off-topic here.

But I will ask you again: Will you or won't you provide sources for the claims you made about these unnamed Fathers?
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #41 on: March 12, 2010, 07:06:48 PM »

Professor, one of our priests was browsing the site.  Until a few years ago he was resident in Washington.  He says he was astounded to see on OC.net a picture of Senator Chris Dodd who is not only a Roman Catholic politician but he is also a pro-abortion senator.  Apparently he is in favour of that most evil and gruesome ways of killing children - induced partial birth followed by killing with scissors stabbed into the base of the skull.  Now that I know that it kind of makes me gag to see your avatar.
Hmm...I see. I won't discuss politics here, but I will say that I find your summation of the Senator to be rather one-sided. I assure you that he is my current avatar for reasons completely unrelated to abortion. If you want to know my reasoning, PM me; it's rather off-topic here.


The portrayal of a pro-abortion senator as your avatar could be seen as a political statement and whatever reasons you may have for promoting him, his promotion of the partial birth killing of babies negates them all. 
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #42 on: March 12, 2010, 07:09:34 PM »

Professor, one of our priests was browsing the site.  Until a few years ago he was resident in Washington.  He says he was astounded to see on OC.net a picture of Senator Chris Dodd who is not only a Roman Catholic politician but he is also a pro-abortion senator.  Apparently he is in favour of that most evil and gruesome ways of killing children - induced partial birth followed by killing with scissors stabbed into the base of the skull.  Now that I know that it kind of makes me gag to see your avatar.
Hmm...I see. I won't discuss politics here, but I will say that I find your summation of the Senator to be rather one-sided. I assure you that he is my current avatar for reasons completely unrelated to abortion. If you want to know my reasoning, PM me; it's rather off-topic here.
The portrayal of a pro-abortion senator as your avatar could be seen as a political statement and whatever reasons you may have for promoting him, his promotion of the partial birth killing of babies negates them all. 
It's not a political statement. I don't give a rat's behind what the government does about abortion. In my mind, all politicians are pro-choice, because none of them has done or will ever do a single thing to end it. That's all I'm going to say here. PM me if you want to know my reasoning, PM me.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #43 on: March 12, 2010, 07:28:04 PM »

Professor, one of our priests was browsing the site.  Until a few years ago he was resident in Washington.  He says he was astounded to see on OC.net a picture of Senator Chris Dodd who is not only a Roman Catholic politician but he is also a pro-abortion senator.  Apparently he is in favour of that most evil and gruesome ways of killing children - induced partial birth followed by killing with scissors stabbed into the base of the skull.  Now that I know that it kind of makes me gag to see your avatar.
Hmm...I see. I won't discuss politics here, but I will say that I find your summation of the Senator to be rather one-sided. I assure you that he is my current avatar for reasons completely unrelated to abortion. If you want to know my reasoning, PM me; it's rather off-topic here.
The portrayal of a pro-abortion senator as your avatar could be seen as a political statement and whatever reasons you may have for promoting him, his promotion of the partial birth killing of babies negates them all. 
It's not a political statement. I don't give a rat's behind what the government does about abortion. In my mind, all politicians are pro-choice, because none of them has done or will ever do a single thing to end it. That's all I'm going to say here. PM me if you want to know my reasoning, PM me.

Why should I PM you privately when *you* are making a public and political promotion of Senator Chris Dodd with your avatar, in every message you post?   We are in a thread concerned with human reproduction issues and what people see is your support of a pro-abortion politician.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #44 on: March 12, 2010, 07:38:04 PM »

I'm not going to continue down this tangent with you, because as you say, we are concerned here with contraception. You know what to do if you wish to continue it. But what I'm really concerned with is not what people do in their bedrooms, as I think prying into that is rather perverted. I'm really just concerned with your claim that "Fathers"--and you have not been more specific than that--have said no one should have sex without the intention and capability of reproducing. I really just want you to substantiate that claim. I've asked you twice now as an ordinary poster, and you have instead brought up irrelevant points instead of answering the question. So now I feel I have no choice but to make a formal moderator's request.

Irish Hermit, I request that you provide sources for the statements you have made that "the Fathers" say no one should have sex without the intention and capability of reproducing. Please find one quotation from an Orthodox Father or Mother that supports your position. You have 48 hours, at the expiration of which further moderatorial action will be considered.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #45 on: March 12, 2010, 07:42:40 PM »

Irish Hermit,

ytterbiumanalyst is permitted to use the photo of a politician in his avatar if he chooses, as long as he doesn't submit posts with political content on any of the public boards.  If you have a problem with this, then please send a PM to Fr. Chris or one of the global moderators to protest.  Do not derail threads by complaining about a poster's choice of avatar publicly.  I will not tolerate any more discussion of this issue here.

- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 07:43:07 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #46 on: March 12, 2010, 07:47:20 PM »

I'm not going to continue down this tangent with you, because as you say, we are concerned here with contraception. You know what to do if you wish to continue it. But what I'm really concerned with is not what people do in their bedrooms, as I think prying into that is rather perverted. I'm really just concerned with your claim that "Fathers"--and you have not been more specific than that--have said no one should have sex without the intention and capability of reproducing. I really just want you to substantiate that claim. I've asked you twice now as an ordinary poster, and you have instead brought up irrelevant points instead of answering the question. So now I feel I have no choice but to make a formal moderator's request.

Irish Hermit, I request that you provide sources for the statements you have made that "the Fathers" say no one should have sex without the intention and capability of reproducing. Please find one quotation from an Orthodox Father or Mother that supports your position. You have 48 hours, at the expiration of which further moderatorial action will be considered.

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?"
Saint Hieronymous, " Against Jovinian" 19

Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #47 on: March 12, 2010, 07:48:22 PM »

I'm not going to continue down this tangent with you, because as you say, we are concerned here with contraception. You know what to do if you wish to continue it. But what I'm really concerned with is not what people do in their bedrooms, as I think prying into that is rather perverted. I'm really just concerned with your claim that "Fathers"--and you have not been more specific than that--have said no one should have sex without the intention and capability of reproducing. I really just want you to substantiate that claim. I've asked you twice now as an ordinary poster, and you have instead brought up irrelevant points instead of answering the question. So now I feel I have no choice but to make a formal moderator's request.

Irish Hermit, I request that you provide sources for the statements you have made that "the Fathers" say no one should have sex without the intention and capability of reproducing. Please find one quotation from an Orthodox Father or Mother that supports your position. You have 48 hours, at the expiration of which further moderatorial action will be considered.

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?"
Saint Hieronymous, " Against Jovinian" 19
Thank you. Claim substantiated, and moderator's request fulfilled.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #48 on: March 12, 2010, 07:53:48 PM »

a simple Google search brought these up:

Letter of Barnabas

Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, "Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness" (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Alexandria

Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature (ibid. 2:10:95:3).

Hippolytus

[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion] (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 225]).

Lactantius

[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring (ibid. 6:23:18).

Epiphanius

They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

John Chrysostom

[l]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet) and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization] (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws? (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome

But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion] (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her, is joined to the man to gratify his passion (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).

You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [I Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny (ibid. 22:30).

Caesarius

Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #49 on: March 12, 2010, 08:04:44 PM »

^ All the more reason why it was an easy request to fulfill. But fulfilled it is, and I will leave this discussion now. I'd rather not discuss sex.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #50 on: March 12, 2010, 08:10:58 PM »

a simple Google search brought these up:

Letter of Barnabas

Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, "Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness" (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Alexandria

Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature (ibid. 2:10:95:3).

Hippolytus

[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion] (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 225]).

Lactantius

[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring (ibid. 6:23:18).

Epiphanius

They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

John Chrysostom

[l]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet) and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization] (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws? (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome

But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion] (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her, is joined to the man to gratify his passion (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).

You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [I Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny (ibid. 22:30).

Caesarius

Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).
Yes, it's already been established that many of the Fathers taught that marital relations were honorable only so far as the motive was procreation, thus ruling out contraception as evil.  The question put before us, though, is whether all the Fathers (to use your words) or just "the Fathers" (without qualification, thus implying patristic consensus, as Irish Hermit insinuated) taught this.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #51 on: March 12, 2010, 08:12:30 PM »

yes i know, you demand 100% percent unanimity on everything, but im not sure what beliefs that could actually leave you with ....
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #52 on: March 12, 2010, 08:19:20 PM »

a simple Google search brought these up:

Letter of Barnabas

Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, "Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness" (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Alexandria

Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature (ibid. 2:10:95:3).

Hippolytus

[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion] (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 225]).

Lactantius

[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring (ibid. 6:23:18).

Epiphanius

They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

John Chrysostom

[l]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet) and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization] (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws? (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome

But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion] (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her, is joined to the man to gratify his passion (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).

You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [I Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny (ibid. 22:30).

Caesarius

Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).
Yes, it's already been established that many of the Fathers taught that marital relations were honorable only so far as the motive was procreation, thus ruling out contraception as evil.  The question put before us, though, is whether all the Fathers (to use your words) or just "the Fathers" (without qualification, thus implying patristic consensus, as Irish Hermit insinuated) taught this.

Irish Hermit insinuated nothing!   But I think that the use of the emotive word "insinuated" wants to insinuate something about me?

Irish Hermit has already stated here and many times elsewhere that the paucity of patristic writings on this matter makes it difficult to say we have a consensus.  The sample range of the Holy Fathers is not wide enough.   And indeed the Church has rejected the teaching that we do have from the Fathers.  The Church has chosen to go with Saint John Chrysostom and his teaching of the value of unitive sex as well as the value of procreative sex.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #53 on: March 12, 2010, 08:24:52 PM »

yes i know, you demand 100% percent unanimity on everything, but im not sure what beliefs that could actually leave you with ....
Yes, that's the joy of my faith.  There are very few beliefs about which I'm so dogmatic that I need to win a fight to preach them. Wink
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #54 on: March 12, 2010, 08:32:09 PM »

well to each his own i suppose. the joy of my faith is that its not up to me, bc id screw it up.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #55 on: March 12, 2010, 09:16:09 PM »

well to each his own i suppose. the joy of my faith is that its not up to me, bc id screw it up.
Indeed!  That's why I try not to define a whole bunch of dogmatic positions that just don't need defined. Wink
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #56 on: March 13, 2010, 02:11:54 PM »

ah, but YOU have decided that they dont need defined, whereas our Fathers and Saints have said quite a bit about them! If they spill so much ink on any given topic, we should accept that it matters, rather than re-examining everything through our secularist 21st century lenses that we all have on at times.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #57 on: March 13, 2010, 03:11:59 PM »

ah, but YOU have decided that they dont need defined, whereas our Fathers and Saints have said quite a bit about them!
No doubt they have, but they're not the ones synthesizing their disparate statements into a unified dogmatic corpus on this thread.  You are.

If they spill so much ink on any given topic, we should accept that it matters, rather than re-examining everything through our secularist 21st century lenses that we all have on at times.
Yes, we should accept that it matters, but not in the way you think it matters.  What are you trying to prove here, anyway?  That the Church has proclaimed contraception evil and that no priest or bishop has any authority to grant economy to individual couples on this matter?  We all--well, most of us--agree that the Church sees contraception as less than ideal.  The question is about how this perspective is to be applied to specific couples facing specific circumstances.  Can you answer that?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #58 on: March 13, 2010, 09:02:35 PM »

ah, but YOU have decided that they dont need defined, whereas our Fathers and Saints have said quite a bit about them!
No doubt they have, but they're not the ones synthesizing their disparate statements into a unified dogmatic corpus on this thread.  You are.

no, on this thread i merely did a Google search and copy and pasted the quotes that someone else asked for.

If they spill so much ink on any given topic, we should accept that it matters, rather than re-examining everything through our secularist 21st century lenses that we all have on at times.
Yes, we should accept that it matters, but not in the way you think it matters.  What are you trying to prove here, anyway?  That the Church has proclaimed contraception evil and that no priest or bishop has any authority to grant economy to individual couples on this matter?  We all--well, most of us--agree that the Church sees contraception as less than ideal.  The question is about how this perspective is to be applied to specific couples facing specific circumstances.  Can you answer that?
[/quote]

my point is simple: look to Tradition on any matter having to do with faith, not to ourselves and our culture.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 13, 2010, 09:13:27 PM »

i dont know if there is any "official" stance, but your priest seems to be pretty in line with all the earliest Fathers and theologians

Out of line really....

Although we do not have an extensive amount of material from the Fathers on this topic we do have enough to know that they had two requisites..

The conjugal act must take place with the

1. intention to conceive

2. possibility to conceive.

So, no woman in menopause should engage in sexual acts with her husband? No pregnant woman, even at very early stages of pregnancy? No lactating woman? No woman who underwent hysterectomy? No woman (or man) who is as androgine?


As I have piointed out we have little material from the Fathers on this matter but what we do have shows that they were sharply against sexual intercourse in all the situations you have described.   They saw them as simply an exercise in lust.

The one exception to the Fathers' opinion is Saint John Chrysostom who speaks of what we would now call unitive sex as being of at least equal value with procreative sex.

Citations are already in the Forum's archives many times over.

Thank you, Father. To me, it's just sad. I cannot understand, how one can not value, appreciate unitive sex in marriage and consider it in ANY case an "exercise in lust." That's dehumanizing... For yet another time, I cannot but think that Fathers were, in some respects, strange people, to put it mildly.

I wonder, did they (the Fathers) even understand that there is a GIVING aspect in marital conjugation, not merely receiving? And that the giving is, in the case of couples that live together long enough and truly love each other, indeed the most precious, unique, un-replaceable giving of the gift of oneself?

Probably not...

Funny (or strange) that my remark caused no discussion whatsoever. People kept hitting each other regarding the points they had made, but my point was never addressed.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 09:18:15 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,287



« Reply #60 on: March 13, 2010, 11:04:44 PM »

i dont know if there is any "official" stance, but your priest seems to be pretty in line with all the earliest Fathers and theologians

Out of line really....

Although we do not have an extensive amount of material from the Fathers on this topic we do have enough to know that they had two requisites..

The conjugal act must take place with the

1. intention to conceive

2. possibility to conceive.

So, no woman in menopause should engage in sexual acts with her husband? No pregnant woman, even at very early stages of pregnancy? No lactating woman? No woman who underwent hysterectomy? No woman (or man) who is as androgine?


As I have piointed out we have little material from the Fathers on this matter but what we do have shows that they were sharply against sexual intercourse in all the situations you have described.   They saw them as simply an exercise in lust.

The one exception to the Fathers' opinion is Saint John Chrysostom who speaks of what we would now call unitive sex as being of at least equal value with procreative sex.

Citations are already in the Forum's archives many times over.

Thank you, Father. To me, it's just sad. I cannot understand, how one can not value, appreciate unitive sex in marriage and consider it in ANY case an "exercise in lust." That's dehumanizing... For yet another time, I cannot but think that Fathers were, in some respects, strange people, to put it mildly.

I wonder, did they (the Fathers) even understand that there is a GIVING aspect in marital conjugation, not merely receiving? And that the giving is, in the case of couples that live together long enough and truly love each other, indeed the most precious, unique, un-replaceable giving of the gift of oneself?

Probably not...

Funny (or strange) that my remark caused no discussion whatsoever. People kept hitting each other regarding the points they had made, but my point was never addressed.

Sorry.  I think the problem was that you were right on the money, which is less entertaining than watching a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals blinding themselves with their own aura.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #61 on: March 13, 2010, 11:26:05 PM »

my point is simple: look to Tradition on any matter having to do with faith, not to ourselves and our culture.
I think this thread has been about looking to Tradition for answers to the question of the OP, though.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 11:27:06 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 12, 2010, 05:47:54 AM »

CONTEXT NOTE:  The following continuation of this thread split off from here:  Marital sex is a sin in Orthodoxy?  -PtA



The problem with any form of aritificial "birth control" is that it is essentially an anti-life act. Sex between man and wife is not only for procreation (it is also for intimate marital pleasure and for fighting worldly temptations, as Asteriktos said), but it must not be artficially separated from procreation. Since there are natural means of "family planning," artificial barriers to the conception of life are antithetical to God's plan for sex and marrige.


Selam
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 01:43:42 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #63 on: May 12, 2010, 08:14:54 AM »

Unfortunately, what Gebre expressed above seems to be a rather prevalent view among the Orthodox clergy and laity. At least on the Internet forums.  Grin

Personally, as I wrote many times, I believe it's a bunch of BS.  Cry (But that's just me.)

Most importantly, however, - there is no "one-size-fits-it-all" dogma about non-abortive contraception in Orthodoxy. It is PRINCIPALLY a PASTORAL issue, NOT a dogmatic one. There are no papal encyclicas that are "binding" to us, Orthodox, in regards of when do we have children after we marry, how many children we have, how do we "space" our children etc. etc. etc. Instead, for us there are our priests, whom we are supposed to ask for their blessing for what we have in mind regarding our plans to have or not to have children.
Logged

Love never fails.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #64 on: May 12, 2010, 04:15:55 PM »

Unfortunately, what Gebre expressed above seems to be a rather prevalent view among the Orthodox clergy and laity. At least on the Internet forums.  Grin
Personally, as I wrote many times, I believe it's a bunch of BS.  Cry (But that's just me.)
No, it's not just you.  I also believe it is a bunch of bunk.
Logged
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #65 on: May 12, 2010, 04:29:26 PM »

I'm not married, but am firmly in Heorhij's camp on this one!
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #66 on: May 12, 2010, 04:41:45 PM »

Unfortunately, what Gebre expressed above seems to be a rather prevalent view among the Orthodox clergy and laity. At least on the Internet forums.  Grin

Personally, as I wrote many times, I believe it's a bunch of BS.  Cry (But that's just me.)

Most importantly, however, - there is no "one-size-fits-it-all" dogma about non-abortive contraception in Orthodoxy. It is PRINCIPALLY a PASTORAL issue, NOT a dogmatic one. There are no papal encyclicas that are "binding" to us, Orthodox, in regards of when do we have children after we marry, how many children we have, how do we "space" our children etc. etc. etc. Instead, for us there are our priests, whom we are supposed to ask for their blessing for what we have in mind regarding our plans to have or not to have children.

Amen!
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #67 on: May 12, 2010, 05:03:06 PM »

For those of you that have remarked that my comments are "bunk," please tell me what I have said that is contradictory to biblical and apostolic teaching. Here are my comments again, and I will break them down so as to afford others the opportunity to demonstrate exactly how I am in opposition to the Teachings of my Church. I am certainly prepared to repent if I have stated anything heretical.

1. The problem with any form of aritificial "birth control" is that it is essentially an anti-life act. ("Contraception" by definition means "against or contrary to procreation." Thus artificial birth control is inherently an anti life action.)

2. Sex between man and wife is not only for procreation (it is also for intimate marital pleasure and for fighting worldly temptations, as Asteriktos said)... (Why is this bunk? Do you think that sex is only for procreation and not for pleasure and intimacy between man and wife? That would seem to be the Catholic view, not the Orthodox one.)

3. ...but it must not be artficially separated from procreation. (Do you think that God's purpose for sex within marriage is strictly pleasure? Then why marry? If the only purpose for sex is pleasure, then fornicate freely. But this doesn't seem to be the Orthodox view either. I would consider it the hedonist view.)

4. Since there are natural means of "family planning," artificial barriers to the conception of life are antithetical to God's plan for sex and marriage. (Please notice that I have never indicated that married people must have children, or that they must have many children. There are natural ways of preventing the conception of a child without using articficial "contraception." These natural means do require a modicum of self discipline and restraint, which again are things that seem quite compatible with Orthodoxy.)


Selam
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 05:04:13 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #68 on: May 12, 2010, 05:08:17 PM »

For those of you that have remarked... 
You seem to be enamored with the term artificial.  How, precisely, are you defining that term, if you want to be precise and analytical with this whole discussion?
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 12, 2010, 05:19:23 PM »

For those of you that have remarked... 
You seem to be enamored with the term artificial.  How, precisely, are you defining that term, if you want to be precise and analytical with this whole discussion?

Artificial as in unnatural, i.e. condoms, pills, devices, contraptions, chemicals, etc. Anything that is done prior to or after sexual intimacies for the specific purpose of precluding conception.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,859



« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2010, 05:22:55 PM »

The problem with any form of artificial "birth control" is that it is essentially an anti-life act.("Contraception" by definition means "against or contrary to procreation." Thus artificial birth control is inherently an anti life action.)

Why is natural birth control OK?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #71 on: May 12, 2010, 05:28:57 PM »

For those of you that have remarked that my comments are "bunk," please tell me what I have said that is contradictory to biblical and apostolic teaching. Here are my comments again, and I will break them down so as to afford others the opportunity to demonstrate exactly how I am in opposition to the Teachings of my Church. I am certainly prepared to repent if I have stated anything heretical.

1. The problem with any form of aritificial "birth control" is that it is essentially an anti-life act. ("Contraception" by definition means "against or contrary to procreation." Thus artificial birth control is inherently an anti life action.)

2. Sex between man and wife is not only for procreation (it is also for intimate marital pleasure and for fighting worldly temptations, as Asteriktos said)... (Why is this bunk? Do you think that sex is only for procreation and not for pleasure and intimacy between man and wife? That would seem to be the Catholic view, not the Orthodox one.)

3. ...but it must not be artficially separated from procreation. (Do you think that God's purpose for sex within marriage is strictly pleasure? Then why marry? If the only purpose for sex is pleasure, then fornicate freely. But this doesn't seem to be the Orthodox view either. I would consider it the hedonist view.)

4. Since there are natural means of "family planning," artificial barriers to the conception of life are antithetical to God's plan for sex and marriage. (Please notice that I have never indicated that married people must have children, or that they must have many children. There are natural ways of preventing the conception of a child without using articficial "contraception." These natural means do require a modicum of self discipline and restraint, which again are things that seem quite compatible with Orthodoxy.)


Selam

Gebre, I am sorry if I hit a nerve. No, you did not contradict Biblical or apostolic teaching. But the thing is, neither the writers of the Bible nor the holy Apostles knew about modern contraceptive techniques. They also knew nothing about antibiotics, cars, planes, tanks, computers etc. So they could not possibly write or teach something about Provera or vasectomy one way or another. There are no Biblical or apostolic teachings about antibiotics, cars, computers, Provera, or vasectomy.Smiley

What I called "bunch of BS" is the view that any contraception except the so-called natural (?) family planning is "anti-life." The reason for this scepticism of mine about this view is simply that married couples sometimes have sex with conscious wish to NOT have children right now, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that by any human or Biblical or Apostolic or whatever standard. The sexual act in this case is for the sole purpose of giving yourself as a gift to your spouse. This act sustains marriage not any worse than the act WITH a desire to conceive. If I use condom, I don't kill any life. If my wife takes Provera, she does not kill any life either. It's exactly the same as having sex on days when there is no ovulation. Except, of course, there is more probability that your wish to NOT conceive a child will be fulfilled if you use a condom instead of playing a "Russian roulette" of this so-called "natural" family planning.

But again, it's just me. I do not represent Orthodoxy when I say this, just my own thoughts.
Logged

Love never fails.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #72 on: May 12, 2010, 05:29:33 PM »

How, precisely, are you defining that term...
Artificial as in unnatural, i.e. condoms, pills, devices, contraptions, chemicals, etc.
And here is the first inconsistency.  Not all chemicals are unnatural.  Not all condoms are unnatural (ever heard of fish skin?)  You'll have to do better than that.  An inconsistent argument is always the easiest to defend.

Quote
Anything that is done prior to or after sexual intimacies for the specific purpose of precluding conception.

Anything is a pretty broad category.  Does this include mental activity?  Such as realizing that waiting a few days would likely avoid conception?  Because that's what I thought you meant earlier by natural means
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #73 on: May 12, 2010, 05:40:23 PM »

The problem with any form of artificial "birth control" is that it is essentially an anti-life act.("Contraception" by definition means "against or contrary to procreation." Thus artificial birth control is inherently an anti life action.)

Why is natural birth control OK?


I'm not really sure what my Church's teaching on that is. Without getting too graphic, let's just say that there are two primary forms of "natural" birth control. One form is condemned in the Old Testament (see Genesis 38:9-10), and may in fact be considered unnatural. I'm not sure. But the other form - sometimes called the "rhythm method" - is quite natural and quite effective.

Natural birth control does not seek to interfere with the divine inherent purpose for the natural will and order. It respects God and honors creation. Artificial birth control is a kind of sexaul bulimia nervosa. We want the physical pleasure without the natural and spritual benfits that were intended to accompany that pleasure.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 12, 2010, 05:43:26 PM »

Quote
Anything that is done prior to or after sexual intimacies for the specific purpose of precluding conception.

Anything is a pretty broad category.  Does this include mental activity?  Such as realizing that waiting a few days would likely avoid conception?  Because that's what I thought you meant earlier by natural means

Exactly! I have always wondered, why in the world avoiding sex on those days when conception is most likely is "natural," while making any day a day when conception is highly unlikely "unnatural." Because the latter is achieved by a pharmaceutical intervention? Well, then drinking coffee in the morning is "unnatural," either, and contradicts the Apostolic teachings. (BTW, I am joking of course, but Mormons very seriously believe that it is indeed so. Smiley)
Logged

Love never fails.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,859



« Reply #75 on: May 12, 2010, 05:44:00 PM »

Natural birth control does not seek to interfere with the divine inherent purpose for the natural will and order. It respects God and honors creation. Artificial birth control is a kind of sexual bulimia nervosa. We want the physical pleasure without the natural and spiritual benefits that were intended to accompany that pleasure.

How is any kind of "control" not an "interference"?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #76 on: May 12, 2010, 05:45:05 PM »

Artificial birth control is a kind of sexaul bulimia nervosa. We want the physical pleasure without the natural and spritual benfits that were intended to accompany that pleasure.
How certain are you that this is the only motivation for using what you call artificial birth control?
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #77 on: May 12, 2010, 05:49:28 PM »

How, precisely, are you defining that term...
Artificial as in unnatural, i.e. condoms, pills, devices, contraptions, chemicals, etc.
And here is the first inconsistency.  Not all chemicals are unnatural.  Not all condoms are unnatural (ever heard of fish skin?)  You'll have to do better than that.  An inconsistent argument is always the easiest to defend.

Quote
Anything that is done prior to or after sexual intimacies for the specific purpose of precluding conception.

Anything is a pretty broad category.  Does this include mental activity?  Such as realizing that waiting a few days would likely avoid conception?  Because that's what I thought you meant earlier by natural means

The highlighted words indicate an act or actions, not mere thoughts.

I knew you were trying to trap me, but your trap was unsuccessful. I specifically clarified what I mean by "artificial," and my comments belied no inconsistencies. You can parse my words and play games of semantics, but I was very clear. However, if you want an official answer, then consult the Teachings of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church on the matter.  


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #78 on: May 12, 2010, 05:52:13 PM »

Natural birth control does not seek to interfere with the divine inherent purpose for the natural will and order. It respects God and honors creation. Artificial birth control is a kind of sexual bulimia nervosa. We want the physical pleasure without the natural and spiritual benefits that were intended to accompany that pleasure.

How is any kind of "control" not an "interference"?

Because self control is not an interference but rather the path to theosis.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,859



« Reply #79 on: May 12, 2010, 05:54:24 PM »

How certain are you that this is the only motivation for using what you call artificial birth control?

Indeed. Let's posit that, for example, a woman undergoes multiple cesarean sections because there are multiple complications with the vaginal deliveries of several infants. After having two or three of these, her doctor informs her that to have additional children would endanger her life and safety, because her uterine wall will likely rupture from the multiple incisions. In other words, it would be suicide to have anymore kids.

Are her and the husband then forever forbidden to engage in sexual activity, knowing that they would have to use some form on contraception (be it a vasectomy or at least condoms) to ensure the safety of the wife's life? In this scenario, it has nothing to do with avoiding children, but rather has to do with protecting life while seeking to retain the intimate bonds of affection in marital relations.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 05:58:16 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,859



« Reply #80 on: May 12, 2010, 05:55:27 PM »

Because self control is not an interference but rather the path to theosis.

When you control yourself you are interfering with your sinful inclinations. Are you not getting my point?
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #81 on: May 12, 2010, 05:55:45 PM »

Artificial birth control is a kind of sexaul bulimia nervosa. We want the physical pleasure without the natural and spritual benfits that were intended to accompany that pleasure.
How certain are you that this is the only motivation for using what you call artificial birth control?


It is not the only motivation, but I am very certain that in this society it is the primary motivation. I am also certain that most Christians have been negatively effected by the standards of society, especially in the area of sexuality. And this forum provides ample evidence.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #82 on: May 12, 2010, 05:57:59 PM »

How certain are you that this is the only motivation for using what you call artificial birth control?

Indeed. Let's posit that, for example, a woman undergoes multiple cesarean sections because there are multiple complications with the vaginal deliveries of several infants. After having two or three of these, her doctor informs her that to have additional children would endanger her life and safety, because her uterine wall will likely rupture from the multiple incisions. In other words, it would be suicide to have anymore kids.

Are her and the husband then forever forbidden to engage in sexual activity, knowing that the would have to use some form on contraception (be it a vasectomy or at least condoms) to ensure the safety of the wife's life? In this scenario, it has nothing to do with avoiding children, but rather has to do with protecting life.

And I never asserted that this is the only motivation for artificial birth control.

A few more posts and they'll be saying I advocate female cirucmcision!


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #83 on: May 12, 2010, 06:01:40 PM »

The highlighted words indicate an act or actions, not mere thoughts.
And I thought it was clear that I was implying the act of waiting, but perhaps it was not.

Quote
I knew you were trying to trap me, but your trap was unsuccessful. I specifically clarified what I mean by "artificial," and my comments belied no inconsistencies. You can parse my words and play games of semantics, but I was very clear. However, if you want an official answer, then consult the Teachings of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church on the matter.
No, I wasn't trying to trap at all, merely to understand.  But if your final answer is to squawk about semantics and point me to the official answer, then that's fine; we're probably done.

Do please realize, however, that your original response wasn't citing the Ethiopian Orthodox Church teachings.  It was simply signed GMK.  If you don't wish your thoughts to be analyzed, then I'd recommend you not present them as your own.

Regards.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #84 on: May 12, 2010, 06:03:20 PM »

Because self control is not an interference but rather the path to theosis.

When you control yourself you are interfering with your sinful inclinations. Are you not getting my point?

I get your point. And my point is that natural birth control is not interfering with God's plan for sexuality. The rhythm method involves self-coltrol, which is a good thing. Also, when married couples use natural means of not conceiving out of altruistic motivations, then this is also a good thing.  


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,859



« Reply #85 on: May 12, 2010, 06:03:43 PM »

And I never asserted that this is the only motivation for artificial birth control.

A few more posts and they'll be saying I advocate female circumcision!

Not at all. You seemed to be saying that all forms of artificial birth control are wrong in all situations. I was providing a situation where I would think that they would be perfectly acceptable. But there are many other individual situations which would require such considerations. This is why this is considered to be a pastoral issue. You seem to making a blanket condemnation which doesn't seem fair to me, that's all.

Peace be with you.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #86 on: May 12, 2010, 06:05:35 PM »

The highlighted words indicate an act or actions, not mere thoughts.
And I thought it was clear that I was implying the act of waiting, but perhaps it was not.

Quote
I knew you were trying to trap me, but your trap was unsuccessful. I specifically clarified what I mean by "artificial," and my comments belied no inconsistencies. You can parse my words and play games of semantics, but I was very clear. However, if you want an official answer, then consult the Teachings of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church on the matter.
No, I wasn't trying to trap at all, merely to understand.  But if your final answer is to squawk about semantics and point me to the official answer, then that's fine; we're probably done.

Do please realize, however, that your original response wasn't citing the Ethiopian Orthodox Church teachings.  It was simply signed GMK.  If you don't wish your thoughts to be analyzed, then I'd recommend you not present them as your own.

Regards.

I am willing to discuss it, as I have been. Still waiting for someone to show me how my original comments are heretical or out of line with Orthodox teaching.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,859



« Reply #87 on: May 12, 2010, 06:10:15 PM »

Because self control is not an interference but rather the path to theosis.
When you control yourself you are interfering with your sinful inclinations. Are you not getting my point?
I get your point. And my point is that natural birth control is not interfering with God's plan for sexuality. The rhythm method involves self-control, which is a good thing.

My point is that control = interference in this situation. Perhaps I'm making a false equivalent. At any rate, your resolute line of control being acceptable at the "mental" level but not the physical/material one just seems inconsistent to me. It would seem like to be highly principled and consistent in this matter one would have to always be rolling the dice every time they had relations, not keeping track to be certain "when it's safe."
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,859



« Reply #88 on: May 12, 2010, 06:13:19 PM »

Still waiting for someone to show me how my original comments are heretical or out of line with Orthodox teaching.

Your line of thinking can work within Orthodoxy, but it seems to be a matter of opinion rather than fact. You are stating that artificial contraceptives are categorically wrong and unnatural, but I just don't see how that is true in every situation. It seems true in some or even most situations to me, but certainly not all.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #89 on: May 12, 2010, 06:15:17 PM »

Still waiting for someone to show me how my original comments are heretical or out of line with Orthodox teaching.
I'm certain that I never said, nor do I think anyone has said, that your comments or thoughts are heretical. You stated them, however, in a way that clearly implied you considered them to be absolutely true.

But absoluteness has an extremely elusive quality to it, as my questions about your definition of artificial quickly demonstrated.  The OP asked a question about our faith.  Your answer was clearly intended to communicate that there is only one correct answer.  With that conclusion, I vehemently disagree.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #90 on: May 12, 2010, 06:17:08 PM »

How certain are you that this is the only motivation for using what you call artificial birth control?

Indeed. Let's posit that, for example, a woman undergoes multiple cesarean sections because there are multiple complications with the vaginal deliveries of several infants. After having two or three of these, her doctor informs her that to have additional children would endanger her life and safety, because her uterine wall will likely rupture from the multiple incisions. In other words, it would be suicide to have anymore kids.

Are her and the husband then forever forbidden to engage in sexual activity, knowing that they would have to use some form on contraception (be it a vasectomy or at least condoms) to ensure the safety of the wife's life? In this scenario, it has nothing to do with avoiding children, but rather has to do with protecting life while seeking to retain the intimate bonds of affection in marital relations.

First, you continue to assume that artificial birth control is the only effective means of precluding conception. That's a false assumption.

Second, if impregnating my wife would cause her death, then I would not have sexual relations with her anymore. How selfish would I be to take that chance? It would be better to abstain from sex and trust in God. He can work wonders you know, and perhaps my wife would be healed of her condition and be able to bear children once again. But if I had a vasectomy, then what?

You see, anytime we go against God's natural will and order, we cause ourselves harm. That's my point.

Rather than looking at it from the negative ("God forbids this and that," etc), we should look at it from the positive. Life is a blessing, children are a blessing, sex is a blessing, marriage is a blessing- and they all go together. Satan always wants us to see God and His laws as burdens, but they are actually liberations.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,536



« Reply #91 on: May 12, 2010, 06:24:44 PM »

I am willing to discuss it, as I have been. Still waiting for someone to show me how my original comments are heretical or out of line with Orthodox teaching.

I don't think I can speak to "Orthodox teaching" anymore as every Orthodox seems to have a different opinion!  Cheesy However, so far as I have read, the Church Fathers did not make distinctions such as natural vs. artificial or active vs. passive. Those who spoke against contraception spoke against the act of having sex with the intention of avoiding the creation of a child. The condemnation, when it was made, included "natural" birth control methods known to the ancients along with the "artificial" ones. It was the intention that the Fathers focused on, not the method. If your intention was to have sex while avoiding the possibility (or probability) or procreation, then (if they spoke on the subject at all) they considered you in the wrong. If my computer hadn't died I could supply you with some quotes, but alas, all my files were lost a few months ago, and I still haven't recovered the data.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #92 on: May 12, 2010, 06:25:46 PM »

Still waiting for someone to show me how my original comments are heretical or out of line with Orthodox teaching.
I'm certain that I never said, nor do I think anyone has said, that your comments or thoughts are heretical. You stated them, however, in a way that clearly implied you considered them to be absolutely true.

But absoluteness has an extremely elusive quality to it, as my questions about your definition of artificial quickly demonstrated.  The OP asked a question about our faith.  Your answer was clearly intended to communicate that there is only one correct answer.  With that conclusion, I vehemently disagree.

Chrevbel and Alveus,

I am not a Pope. I never made any statements about what is "always wrong in any or every situation." I simply stated what is natural and unnatural, and that artificial forms of birth control stem from an anti-life mentality. I gave an opinion which I believe is very Orthodox, and I said that I will recant if I am promoting anything heretical.  


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 12, 2010, 06:30:17 PM »

I am willing to discuss it, as I have been. Still waiting for someone to show me how my original comments are heretical or out of line with Orthodox teaching.

I don't think I can speak to "Orthodox teaching" anymore as every Orthodox seems to have a different opinion!  Cheesy However, so far as I have read, the Church Fathers did not make distinctions such as natural vs. artificial or active vs. passive. Those who spoke against contraception spoke against the act of having sex with the intention of avoiding the creation of a child. The condemnation, when it was made, included "natural" birth control methods known to the ancients along with the "artificial" ones. It was the intention that the Fathers focused on, not the method. If your intention was to have sex while avoiding the possibility (or probability) or procreation, then (if they spoke on the subject at all) they considered you in the wrong. If my computer hadn't died I could supply you with some quotes, but alas, all my files were lost a few months ago, and I still haven't recovered the data.


Right. That's why I said earlier that I'm not sure what my Church teaches regrding natural birth control. I think you are correct about the intentions, which is really the crux of my point. Satan is always trying to plant seeds in our minds that Life is bad, babies are burdens, children are chores, etc. So I think that we have to fight against that. I definitely struggle with it myself.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #94 on: May 12, 2010, 06:33:22 PM »

I never made any statements about what is "always wrong in any or every situation."
Fair enough.  In what hypothetical situation would you consider condom use to be acceptable?  In what hypothetical situation would you consider taking birth control pills to be acceptable?
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #95 on: May 12, 2010, 06:43:44 PM »

I never made any statements about what is "always wrong in any or every situation."
Fair enough.  In what hypothetical situation would you consider condom use to be acceptable?  In what hypothetical situation would you consider taking birth control pills to be acceptable?


None. But I am not the Pope. I am only an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, promoting the beliefs of my Church. Most people here are EO, and maybe their Churches teach that artificial birth control is a subjective matter to be decided by married couples and their Priests. But I believe in the objective Teachings of my Faith, without apology.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #96 on: May 12, 2010, 07:56:05 PM »

For those of you that have remarked that my comments are "bunk," please tell me what I have said that is contradictory to biblical and apostolic teaching. Here are my comments again, and I will break them down so as to afford others the opportunity to demonstrate exactly how I am in opposition to the Teachings of my Church. I am certainly prepared to repent if I have stated anything heretical.

1. The problem with any form of aritificial "birth control" is that it is essentially an anti-life act. ("Contraception" by definition means "against or contrary to procreation." Thus artificial birth control is inherently an anti life action.)

2. Sex between man and wife is not only for procreation (it is also for intimate marital pleasure and for fighting worldly temptations, as Asteriktos said)... (Why is this bunk? Do you think that sex is only for procreation and not for pleasure and intimacy between man and wife? That would seem to be the Catholic view, not the Orthodox one.)

3. ...but it must not be artficially separated from procreation. (Do you think that God's purpose for sex within marriage is strictly pleasure? Then why marry? If the only purpose for sex is pleasure, then fornicate freely. But this doesn't seem to be the Orthodox view either. I would consider it the hedonist view.)

4. Since there are natural means of "family planning," artificial barriers to the conception of life are antithetical to God's plan for sex and marriage. (Please notice that I have never indicated that married people must have children, or that they must have many children. There are natural ways of preventing the conception of a child without using articficial "contraception." These natural means do require a modicum of self discipline and restraint, which again are things that seem quite compatible with Orthodoxy.)


Selam

Gebre,

It's not what you say is a bunch of "bunk." I just believe that it's a pastoral issue because this is not a black and white issue.

What do you say to the couple who has been told if the woman gets pregnant, she will die because her heart can't handle a pregnancy?

What do you say to the couple who keeps getting pregnant even while using "natural methods" but can't afford to feed anymore children?

I am not looking for you to answer these questions but to realize that the Church recognizes the need for economia, and that internet forums are not the place to seek advice on such a sensitive topic. It may be easy to just say to a couple "abstain from sex," but to a young couple (or any married couple) that is a very harsh statement. To tell a man that he may never be intimate with his wife for fear of causing her death could be destructive to the relationship.

Just because one recognizes the need for condoms does not make one anti-life. I think to paint someone with such a broad brush is unfair.

You have said yourself that you see things as black and white. The Orthodox Church, however, does not. That is why our priests may exercise economia, and may provide grace for the situation.

You don't have to agree with me, but I would caution you against passing judgment on those who disagree with you as "anti-life."

In XC,

Maureen
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 07:59:27 PM by HandmaidenofGod » Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 12, 2010, 08:02:12 PM »

For those of you that have remarked that my comments are "bunk," please tell me what I have said that is contradictory to biblical and apostolic teaching. Here are my comments again, and I will break them down so as to afford others the opportunity to demonstrate exactly how I am in opposition to the Teachings of my Church. I am certainly prepared to repent if I have stated anything heretical.

1. The problem with any form of aritificial "birth control" is that it is essentially an anti-life act. ("Contraception" by definition means "against or contrary to procreation." Thus artificial birth control is inherently an anti life action.)

2. Sex between man and wife is not only for procreation (it is also for intimate marital pleasure and for fighting worldly temptations, as Asteriktos said)... (Why is this bunk? Do you think that sex is only for procreation and not for pleasure and intimacy between man and wife? That would seem to be the Catholic view, not the Orthodox one.)

3. ...but it must not be artficially separated from procreation. (Do you think that God's purpose for sex within marriage is strictly pleasure? Then why marry? If the only purpose for sex is pleasure, then fornicate freely. But this doesn't seem to be the Orthodox view either. I would consider it the hedonist view.)

4. Since there are natural means of "family planning," artificial barriers to the conception of life are antithetical to God's plan for sex and marriage. (Please notice that I have never indicated that married people must have children, or that they must have many children. There are natural ways of preventing the conception of a child without using articficial "contraception." These natural means do require a modicum of self discipline and restraint, which again are things that seem quite compatible with Orthodoxy.)


Selam

Gebre,

It's not what you say is a bunch of "bunk." I just believe that it's a pastoral issue because this is not a black and white issue.

What do you say to the couple who has been told if the woman gets pregnant, she will die because her heart can't handle a pregnancy?

What do you say to the couple who keeps getting pregnant even while using "natural methods" but can't afford to feed anymore children?

I am not looking for you to answer these questions but to realize that the Church recognizes the need for economia, and that internet forums are not the place to seek advice on such a sensitive topic.

Just because one recognizes the need for condoms does not make one anti-life. I think to paint someone with such a broad brush is unfair.

You have said yourself that you see things as black and white. The Orthodox Church, however, does not. That is why our priests may exercise economia, and may provide grace for the situation.

You don't have to agree with me, but I would caution you against passing judgment on those who disagree with you as "anti-life."

In XC,

Maureen

I am not passing judgment on anyone. I am pointing out the objective fact that by definition "contraception" is an act that is "against conception," i.e. against the creation of life.

As for the hypotheticals about pregnancy endagering the life of the mother, I said earlier:

If impregnating my wife would cause her death, then I would not have sexual relations with her anymore. How selfish would I be to take that chance? It would be better to abstain from sex and trust in God. He can work wonders you know, and perhaps my wife would be healed of her condition and be able to bear children once again. But if I had a vasectomy, then what?


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #98 on: May 12, 2010, 08:08:06 PM »

I am not passing judgment on anyone. I am pointing out the objective fact that by definition "contraception" is an act that is "against conception," i.e. against the creation of life.

As for the hypotheticals about pregnancy endagering the life of the mother, I said earlier:

If impregnating my wife would cause her death, then I would not have sexual relations with her anymore. How selfish would I be to take that chance? It would be better to abstain from sex and trust in God. He can work wonders you know, and perhaps my wife would be healed of her condition and be able to bear children once again. But if I had a vasectomy, then what?


Selam

Glory to God that you are strong enough to be willing to abstain from your wife!

But not everyone is.

That is my point. You are seeing things through your tunnel and applying things directly to your life.

What about everyone else?

In any given parish, you will have people such as yourself, who are on fire for their faith, spiritually strong, and able to handle such a burden. You have others who are less strong. And then you have others who are so weak, they are practically crippled.

The Church must administer to each according to their needs.

I understand that contraception is against the creation of life. No one has stated otherwise. Sometimes, it is wiser for us to prevent the creation of life than to bring it into the world to potentially create death. This is why we have Spiritual Fathers. To help navigate us on the road of life with difficult issues such as this.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 08:08:36 PM by HandmaidenofGod » Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,227



« Reply #99 on: May 12, 2010, 08:54:20 PM »

For those of you that have remarked that my comments are "bunk," please tell me what I have said that is contradictory to biblical and apostolic teaching. Here are my comments again, and I will break them down so as to afford others the opportunity to demonstrate exactly how I am in opposition to the Teachings of my Church. I am certainly prepared to repent if I have stated anything heretical.

1. The problem with any form of aritificial "birth control" is that it is essentially an anti-life act. ("Contraception" by definition means "against or contrary to procreation." Thus artificial birth control is inherently an anti life action.)

2. Sex between man and wife is not only for procreation (it is also for intimate marital pleasure and for fighting worldly temptations, as Asteriktos said)... (Why is this bunk? Do you think that sex is only for procreation and not for pleasure and intimacy between man and wife? That would seem to be the Catholic view, not the Orthodox one.)

3. ...but it must not be artficially separated from procreation. (Do you think that God's purpose for sex within marriage is strictly pleasure? Then why marry? If the only purpose for sex is pleasure, then fornicate freely. But this doesn't seem to be the Orthodox view either. I would consider it the hedonist view.)

4. Since there are natural means of "family planning," artificial barriers to the conception of life are antithetical to God's plan for sex and marriage. (Please notice that I have never indicated that married people must have children, or that they must have many children. There are natural ways of preventing the conception of a child without using articficial "contraception." These natural means do require a modicum of self discipline and restraint, which again are things that seem quite compatible with Orthodoxy.)


Selam
A wonderful Orthodox reply.  Smiley

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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #100 on: May 12, 2010, 09:03:35 PM »

The problem with any form of aritificial "birth control" is that it is essentially an anti-life act.

Termination of life and prevention of perpetuation of life are entirely different realities. Contraception does not involve termination of life. Thus, it cannot be treated as if it is in the same umbrella as abortion, state sponsored execution, war, euthanasia, or any of the other issues actually related to termination of life. Some of the reasons against terminating life cannot apply to contraception.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #101 on: May 12, 2010, 09:06:19 PM »

I am certainly prepared to repent if I have stated anything heretical.

You haven't stated anything heretical. Rather, what you have done is dogmatize a theologumenon.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #102 on: May 12, 2010, 09:09:13 PM »

(Do you think that God's purpose for sex within marriage is strictly pleasure? Then why marry? If the only purpose for sex is pleasure, then fornicate freely. But this doesn't seem to be the Orthodox view either. I would consider it the hedonist view.)

Actually, neither pleasure nor procreation are the qualities that justify marriage. They could both very easily be accomplished through promiscuity. It is rather the third fundamental quality, unity of the two through intimacy, which is what justifies marriage and orients pleasure and procreation in a proper context.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #103 on: May 12, 2010, 09:14:06 PM »

4. Since there are natural means of "family planning," artificial barriers to the conception of life are antithetical to God's plan for sex and marriage. (Please notice that I have never indicated that married people must have children, or that they must have many children. There are natural ways of preventing the conception of a child without using articficial "contraception." These natural means do require a modicum of self discipline and restraint, which again are things that seem quite compatible with Orthodoxy.)

You actually think God intended people to use the natural rhythms of the menstrual cycle to avoid conception, another natural aspect of certain other rhythms of the cycle?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #104 on: May 12, 2010, 09:18:27 PM »

We want the physical pleasure without the natural and spritual benfits that were intended to accompany that pleasure.

1. What natural benefits? Surely you must not be talking about conception,b ecause you just said it was fine to intentionally avoid conception through the rhythm method.

2. What spiritual benefits exactly are you talking about and how does the use of condoms prevent them?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #105 on: May 12, 2010, 09:24:11 PM »

It is not the only motivation, but I am very certain that in this society it is the primary motivation.

Perhaps among the unmarried. But why would people bother to marry if pleasure was all they were looking for? Promiscuity is much more effective if pleasure is all you're looking for.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #106 on: May 12, 2010, 09:27:05 PM »

Because self control is not an interference but rather the path to theosis.

When you control yourself you are interfering with your sinful inclinations. Are you not getting my point?

I get your point. And my point is that natural birth control is not interfering with God's plan for sexuality. The rhythm method involves self-coltrol, which is a good thing. Also, when married couples use natural means of not conceiving out of altruistic motivations, then this is also a good thing.  


Selam

How could avoiding having children through "natural" by inherently any more altruistic than avoiding children through "unnatural" means? The intention appears to be exactly the same.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #107 on: May 12, 2010, 09:33:28 PM »

babies are burdens

Babies are burdens, from what I have seen. Regarding them as only that is wrong. Letting that quality overwhelm the others is wrong. However, it is none the less it is one among various qualities of what babies mean to parents. They require a vast amount of time and resources. And sometimes people have the sufficient time and resources to be life partners to each other but not to take care of children (or a certain number thereof) on top of that. My conclusion to that is that it would be better for married folks to not bring new life into the world that cannot be sufficiently taken care of.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #108 on: May 12, 2010, 09:36:20 PM »

I never made any statements about what is "always wrong in any or every situation."
Fair enough.  In what hypothetical situation would you consider condom use to be acceptable?  In what hypothetical situation would you consider taking birth control pills to be acceptable?


None. But I am not the Pope. I am only an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, promoting the beliefs of my Church. Most people here are EO, and maybe their Churches teach that artificial birth control is a subjective matter to be decided by married couples and their Priests. But I believe in the objective Teachings of my Faith, without apology.


Selam

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, in comparison to the whole communion of orthodox churches (whether that be the OO or the EO as well), is liable to error. Its teachings, thus, as well as the teachings of any particular church, should be open to criticism, even by those belonging to them.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #109 on: May 12, 2010, 09:37:57 PM »



In any given parish, you will have people such as yourself, who are on fire for their faith, spiritually strong, and able to handle such a burden. You have others who are less strong. And then you have others who are so weak, they are practically crippled.

The Church must administer to each according to their needs.

I understand that contraception is against the creation of life. No one has stated otherwise. Sometimes, it is wiser for us to prevent the creation of life than to bring it into the world to potentially create death. This is why we have Spiritual Fathers. To help navigate us on the road of life with difficult issues such as this.

Wow. Really? So those who are not spritually strong enough to avoid sin should be accommodated to our weaknesses? I thought the Church calls us to holiness and provides the Sacramental graces to help us attain holiness. But you seem to be saying the opposite. If we are unable to resist temptation, then perhaps our Priest can minister to us according to our needs and give us certain exceptions. You are really advocating a relativistic spirituality that is quite unOrthodox.

Now let's look at your statement: "Sometimes, it is wiser for us to prevent the creation of life than to bring it into the world to potentially create death." So you would allow a negative potential to cause you to thwart a positive reality? The conception of any human life is a positive reality, regardless of the circumstances of conception.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #110 on: May 12, 2010, 09:41:17 PM »

So those who are not spritually strong enough to avoid sin should be accommodated to our weaknesses?

I think you are constructing a straw man fallacy here. She never said she was recognizing it as sin.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #111 on: May 12, 2010, 09:42:36 PM »

I never made any statements about what is "always wrong in any or every situation."
Fair enough.  In what hypothetical situation would you consider condom use to be acceptable?  In what hypothetical situation would you consider taking birth control pills to be acceptable?


None. But I am not the Pope. I am only an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, promoting the beliefs of my Church. Most people here are EO, and maybe their Churches teach that artificial birth control is a subjective matter to be decided by married couples and their Priests. But I believe in the objective Teachings of my Faith, without apology.


Selam

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, in comparison to the whole communion of orthodox churches (whether that be the OO or the EO as well), is liable to error. Its teachings, thus, as well as the teachings of any particular church, should be open to criticism, even by those belonging to them.


The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is not "any particular church." You are free to believe what you want, but you cannot be a faithful member of the EOTC and hold views that are contrary to its Teachings and Tradition. It is not you or I that detemine whether or not the Church is in error. It is the Church that determines whether we are in error.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #112 on: May 12, 2010, 09:45:41 PM »

So those who are not spritually strong enough to avoid sin should be accommodated to our weaknesses?

I think you are constructing a straw man fallacy here. She never said she was recognizing it as sin.

Well let me ask you then: If you knew that impregnating your wife would result in her death, and you knew that no form of birth control is 100% effective, and you still had sex with her kowing there's a chance that she could become pregant and die, then that would be pretty selfish and sinful would it not?


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #113 on: May 12, 2010, 09:49:54 PM »

babies are burdens

Babies are burdens, from what I have seen. Regarding them as only that is wrong. Letting that quality overwhelm the others is wrong. However, it is none the less it is one among various qualities of what babies mean to parents. They require a vast amount of time and resources. And sometimes people have the sufficient time and resources to be life partners to each other but not to take care of children (or a certain number thereof) on top of that. My conclusion to that is that it would be better for married folks to not bring new life into the world that cannot be sufficiently taken care of.

We are all burdens, if you want to see it from such a negative viewpoint. Satan loves this mindset, and it's what drives abortion. Over population paranoia, "every child a wanted child," etc. But I never see any of these people volunteering to eradicte themselves from existence. Somehow they don't see themselves as burdens, but the innocent little babies are.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #114 on: May 12, 2010, 09:52:22 PM »

Because self control is not an interference but rather the path to theosis.

When you control yourself you are interfering with your sinful inclinations. Are you not getting my point?

I get your point. And my point is that natural birth control is not interfering with God's plan for sexuality. The rhythm method involves self-coltrol, which is a good thing. Also, when married couples use natural means of not conceiving out of altruistic motivations, then this is also a good thing.  


Selam

How could avoiding having children through "natural" by inherently any more altruistic than avoiding children through "unnatural" means? The intention appears to be exactly the same.

Because the rhythm method, for example, requires self control and self denial, which are altruistic qualities.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #115 on: May 12, 2010, 09:53:33 PM »

So those who are not spritually strong enough to avoid sin should be accommodated to our weaknesses?

I think you are constructing a straw man fallacy here. She never said she was recognizing it as sin.

Well let me ask you then: If you knew that impregnating your wife would result in her death, and you knew that no form of birth control is 100% effective, and you still had sex with her kowing there's a chance that she could become pregant and die, then that would be pretty selfish and sinful would it not?


Selam

This must be entirely hypothetical, as I have no wife.

I think that would be walking a fine line between the reliability of birth control and the slim chance of pregnancy using it. Obviously it would have to be talked over with one's wife. It should probably be decided by consensus. However, there would definitely be merit in not having vaginal intercourse anymore.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #116 on: May 12, 2010, 09:54:37 PM »

Because self control is not an interference but rather the path to theosis.

When you control yourself you are interfering with your sinful inclinations. Are you not getting my point?

I get your point. And my point is that natural birth control is not interfering with God's plan for sexuality. The rhythm method involves self-coltrol, which is a good thing. Also, when married couples use natural means of not conceiving out of altruistic motivations, then this is also a good thing.  


Selam

How could avoiding having children through "natural" by inherently any more altruistic than avoiding children through "unnatural" means? The intention appears to be exactly the same.

Because the rhythm method, for example, requires self control and self denial, which are altruistic qualities.


Selam

The basic intention behind both is avoiding conception.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #117 on: May 12, 2010, 09:58:15 PM »

It is not the only motivation, but I am very certain that in this society it is the primary motivation.

Perhaps among the unmarried. But why would people bother to marry if pleasure was all they were looking for? Promiscuity is much more effective if pleasure is all you're looking for.

The divorce rate amongst professing Christians is parrallel to that of unbelievers. Most married Christians use some form of artificial birth control As I said, the sexual standards of society have permeated the consciousness of Christians, and the results speak for themselves.

Divorce is the result of people no longer being "satisfied" by their spouse. So many Christians marry for pleasure, be it sexual or otherwise. And then when their married existence ceases to be pleasurable, they divorce. Birth control is perahps the clearest indicator of this phenomena.



Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #118 on: May 12, 2010, 09:59:06 PM »

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is not "any particular church."

In the same sense that the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, and Armenian Apostolic churches are particular churches liable to error, so is the EOTC.

You are free to believe what you want, but you cannot be a faithful member of the EOTC and hold views that are contrary to its Teachings and Tradition.

I think if you could support the notion that you were supported by the more common teachings of the other OO churches, I do not think it would be erroneous to challenge one's particular church's teachings.

It is not you or I that detemine whether or not the Church is in error. It is the Church that determines whether we are in error.

The EOTC is not the Church. It is part of the Church.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #119 on: May 12, 2010, 10:01:21 PM »

Because self control is not an interference but rather the path to theosis.

When you control yourself you are interfering with your sinful inclinations. Are you not getting my point?

I get your point. And my point is that natural birth control is not interfering with God's plan for sexuality. The rhythm method involves self-coltrol, which is a good thing. Also, when married couples use natural means of not conceiving out of altruistic motivations, then this is also a good thing.  


Selam

How could avoiding having children through "natural" by inherently any more altruistic than avoiding children through "unnatural" means? The intention appears to be exactly the same.

Because the rhythm method, for example, requires self control and self denial, which are altruistic qualities.


Selam

The basic intention behind both is avoiding conception.


You are talking about intention. My comments about altruism addressed motivation. The intention may be the same, but the motivation can determine whether or not the action is righteous.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #120 on: May 12, 2010, 10:07:34 PM »

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is not "any particular church."

In the same sense that the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, and Armenian Apostolic churches are particular churches liable to error, so is the EOTC.

You are free to believe what you want, but you cannot be a faithful member of the EOTC and hold views that are contrary to its Teachings and Tradition.

I think if you could support the notion that you were supported by the more common teachings of the other OO churches, I do not think it would be erroneous to challenge one's particular church's teachings.

It is not you or I that detemine whether or not the Church is in error. It is the Church that determines whether we are in error.

The EOTC is not the Church. It is part of the Church.


If anyone wants to provide me with OO teachings that contradict my position, then fine.

We can challenge the Church's Teachings or we can conform to them. Which one we do will detemine whether or not we are a Christians.



Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Blissfully Unaware
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Converting to Oriental Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Syriac Orthodox
Posts: 42


« Reply #121 on: May 12, 2010, 11:11:54 PM »

This thread sure got a lot of post since I last checked it!

Thanks everyone for their posts. I have another question. What about the "pull-out" method. No one has mentioned it so far.

And sorry for asking all these personal questions. I just feel weird as a female asking my male priest some of this stuff.

And for the record, I did do a search on this topic on this website, but then the ones I found in the search just told the OP to do a search! So I had trouble finding any info.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 11:13:53 PM by Blissfully Unaware » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,142


WWW
« Reply #122 on: May 12, 2010, 11:22:14 PM »

This thread sure got a lot of post since I last checked it!

Thanks everyone for their posts. I have another question. What about the "pull-out" method. No one has mentioned it so far.

What you ask has been thoroughly covered in this thread - just replace "birth control" with "pull out."   Wink

And sorry for asking all these personal questions. I just feel weird as a female asking my male priest some of this stuff.

Would asking a female monastic help you ease your discomfort?   Huh

And for the record, I did do a search on this topic on this website, but then the ones I found in the search just told the OP to do a search! So I had trouble finding any info.

A lot of people have great discomfort talking about human sexuality for it quickly deteriorates into controversial topics (some of which are under moratorium) on this board.  I wouldn't use this board to discuss sexual concerns - my $0.01 worth.
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #123 on: May 12, 2010, 11:41:39 PM »

Wow. Really? So those who are not spritually strong enough to avoid sin should be accommodated to our weaknesses? I thought the Church calls us to holiness and provides the Sacramental graces to help us attain holiness. But you seem to be saying the opposite. If we are unable to resist temptation, then perhaps our Priest can minister to us according to our needs and give us certain exceptions. You are really advocating a relativistic spirituality that is quite unOrthodox.

Actually I am advocating a spirituality that is quite Orthodox. It's the Orthodox principle of economia. Something which seems to be foreign to you.

During Great Lent, are we not advised to seek counsel from our Spiritual Father before beginning any sort of fast? Are we not admonished to not judge our brother based on how they may fast?

If a Spiritual Father is willing to excercise economia or akribeia in terms of diet, knowing how spiritually beneficial or damaging such a thing would be, would he not be willing to use the same principles in counseling a married couple on birth control?

Now let's look at your statement: "Sometimes, it is wiser for us to prevent the creation of life than to bring it into the world to potentially create death." So you would allow a negative potential to cause you to thwart a positive reality? The conception of any human life is a positive reality, regardless of the circumstances of conception.

Selam

I'm sorry, but the death of the mother is not a positive reality. I'm sorry you see it as such. 
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #124 on: May 12, 2010, 11:48:26 PM »


I'm sorry, but the death of the mother is not a positive reality. I'm sorry you see it as such. 

You are talking about a potential, not a reality.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #125 on: May 13, 2010, 12:00:05 AM »

This thread started out with the question of whether marital sex is seen as sinful.  How did it become yet another discussion of contraception? Huh
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #126 on: May 13, 2010, 12:01:00 AM »


I'm sorry, but the death of the mother is not a positive reality. I'm sorry you see it as such. 

You are talking about a potential, not a reality.


Selam

No, I'm talking about reality. My head isn't in the clouds. My feet are planted firmly on the ground.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #127 on: May 13, 2010, 12:01:35 AM »


Would asking a female monastic help you ease your discomfort?   Huh


Absolutely Smiley I would be happy to ask a female monastic but I am new to Orthodoxy and didn't know where I would find one. I have only met the priest and several deacons. I'm not sure how I would find a female monastic.

If you PM me, I would be happy to help you find one. Smiley
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,509


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #128 on: May 13, 2010, 12:12:42 AM »

To be frank- the pull out method is horrible in my opinion.

First- the success rate of that method (as in the ability to actually avoid conception) is VERY bad- pre-ejaculate can impregnate you (I know many a woman with babies as proof of that!)

Second- it is a mood killer. I won't go further then that because the specifics of sex really don't need to be discussed.


All that said- NFP, rhythm and calendar methods of birth control are three VERY different methods. NFP or "fertility awareness" is a great deal of work for the wife. If you want to know more about it read "Take charge of your fertility." My husband and I have used this method for about 10 years and we have 4 children ages 8, almost 5, almost 3 and almost 1. You can ovulate twice in a cycle, my two youngest are proof of that Wink Calendar/rhythm is mostly about counting and since most women don't adhere to the "average" cycle where you ovulate on day "x" the failure rate of this type of pregnancy avoidance is higher then NFP/fertility awareness.

If you combine fertility awareness with a barrier method during fertile periods then you don't have to avoid very often. Otherwise there would likely be at least 2 weeks out of the month when you would have to avoid since the menstrual cycle is around a week and you have to avoid for a few days as your fertile signals start to ramp, while you are fertile and for a few days after. Women tend to have an increase in libido during fertile periods, so avoiding during that time can be (for some) a very difficult thing to do. And with fertility signals sometimes being a "gray" area (if you read the book you would understand more what I mean. There are "fertile" signs, "possibly getting fertile" kind of signs and "not fertile" signs that a woman's body gives.)

Gebre- you speak like men are the only ones that want to have sex! That isn't the case! laugh When you avoid during fertile periods you are depriving BOTH people.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 12:25:28 AM by Quinault » Logged
Blissfully Unaware
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Converting to Oriental Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Syriac Orthodox
Posts: 42


« Reply #129 on: May 13, 2010, 12:18:54 AM »


Gebre- you speak like men are the only ones that want to have sex! That isn't the case! laugh When you avoid during fertile periods you are depriving BOTH people.

 laugh Well said Quinault. Many people thought I was a man at first when I posted this thread. But as a female convert hoping to find an Orthodox husband it was very important to me to know what the general consensus is on this topic.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #130 on: May 13, 2010, 01:31:53 AM »


Gebre- you speak like men are the only ones that want to have sex! That isn't the case! laugh When you avoid during fertile periods you are depriving BOTH people.

 laugh Well said Quinault. Many people thought I was a man at first when I posted this thread. But as a female convert hoping to find an Orthodox husband it was very important to me to know what the general consensus is on this topic.


Nothing I have said in any way indicates that I think men are the only ones who want to have sex! I am married, and my wife and I have three children and one on the way. So, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I know that my wife enjoys sex very much.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,509


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #131 on: May 13, 2010, 02:32:33 AM »

You spoke of how you would be selfish if you continued to have sex with your wife if she had a health condition that would kill her if she was to get pregnant. You didn't say that the BOTH of you would be selfish. You don't take into account the concept that the wife may not WANT to be in a celibate marriage because of a health condition.
If impregnating my wife would cause her death, then I would not have sexual relations with her anymore. How selfish would I be to take that chance? It would be better to abstain from sex and trust in God. He can work wonders you know, and perhaps my wife would be healed of her condition and be able to bear children once again. But if I had a vasectomy, then what?


Selam
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 02:33:25 AM by Quinault » Logged
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #132 on: May 13, 2010, 09:47:22 AM »

Thank you HandmaidenofGod and Quinault for your excellent posts. Too often discussions like these are entirely dominated by men (me included) who cannot see things from the viewpoint of the wife and mother.
It is not the men that has to wrestle with questions of their own life and death when health concerns complicate things in a marriage.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 09:49:03 AM by Robert W » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,142


WWW
« Reply #133 on: May 13, 2010, 10:53:42 AM »

Nothing I have said in any way indicates that I think men are the only ones who want to have sex! I am married, and my wife and I have three children and one on the way. So, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I know that my wife enjoys sex very much.

Those who exalt their marital relationships will be humbled at some point.   Wink
Logged
EofK
Mrs. Y
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


lolcat addict


« Reply #134 on: May 13, 2010, 11:07:58 AM »

I have to agree with Quinault here:  NFP sounds really good until you try practicing it.  It takes an enormous amount of monitoring, self-control, and communication with your partner.  That's not to say that those things immediately rule NFP out as a possibility and indeed, I think it's a good way (used in conjunction with a barrier contraceptive) to be more responsible and not violate the teachings of the church.  However, biology is often unpredictable.  As much as one can monitor, abstain, etc., there is always the possibility that the calculations are off or the wife misread her body's cues and to me, it is irresponsible in this current economic and sociological climate to just leave it up to chance whether pregnancy occurs.  Do not think I am saying that children are a burden or are unwanted when they are conceived, because I believe they are wonderful and I thank God for the two I have now.  I am saying that medically and financially speaking, sometimes it is better to prevent pregnancy than to become unable to care for yourself and your children.
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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #135 on: May 13, 2010, 11:49:27 AM »

I have to agree with Quinault here:  NFP sounds really good until you try practicing it.  It takes an enormous amount of monitoring, self-control, and communication with your partner.  That's not to say that those things immediately rule NFP out as a possibility and indeed, I think it's a good way (used in conjunction with a barrier contraceptive) to be more responsible and not violate the teachings of the church.  However, biology is often unpredictable.  As much as one can monitor, abstain, etc., there is always the possibility that the calculations are off or the wife misread her body's cues and to me, it is irresponsible in this current economic and sociological climate to just leave it up to chance whether pregnancy occurs.  Do not think I am saying that children are a burden or are unwanted when they are conceived, because I believe they are wonderful and I thank God for the two I have now.  I am saying that medically and financially speaking, sometimes it is better to prevent pregnancy than to become unable to care for yourself and your children.

Amen. Thank you, sister. Smiley I would add, "than to become unable to realize your potential, squander your talents, live a life you actually do not want to live." (That does not mean that NO woman should be a mother of six or eight or twelve children, but some women should not be.)
Logged

Love never fails.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #136 on: May 13, 2010, 12:01:57 PM »

I have to agree with Quinault here:  NFP sounds really good until you try practicing it.  It takes an enormous amount of monitoring, self-control, and communication with your partner.  That's not to say that those things immediately rule NFP out as a possibility...

NFP is a dead duck in the water.....  The Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States reports that an estimated 2-3% of married Catholic couples use it.   The rest simply don't.  

Given the immense effort that the Catholic Church invests into persuading its people to use NFP, I think that the 2-3% statistic really says it all.  Catholics won't use it.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 12:03:32 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #137 on: May 13, 2010, 12:05:32 PM »

I have to agree with Quinault here:  NFP sounds really good until you try practicing it.  It takes an enormous amount of monitoring, self-control, and communication with your partner.  That's not to say that those things immediately rule NFP out as a possibility...

NFP is a dead duck in the water.....  The Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States reports that an estimated 2-3% of married Catholic couples use it.   The rest simply don't.  

Given the immense effort that the Catholic Church invests into persuading its people to use NFP, I think that the 2-3% statistic really says it all.  Catholics won't use it.
I guess we have a problem of faith in the USA.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #138 on: May 13, 2010, 04:08:37 PM »

NFP is a dead duck in the water.....  The Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States reports that an estimated 2-3% of married Catholic couples use it.   The rest simply don't.  

Given the immense effort that the Catholic Church invests into persuading its people to use NFP, I think that the 2-3% statistic really says it all.  Catholics won't use it.
I guess we have a problem of faith in the USA.

Faith in what? I think what it says is that American Catholics exercise a sort of casuistry here and reject the (celibate) hierarchy's teaching for a variety of reasons.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #139 on: May 13, 2010, 04:12:02 PM »

NFP is a dead duck in the water.....  The Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States reports that an estimated 2-3% of married Catholic couples use it.   The rest simply don't.  

Given the immense effort that the Catholic Church invests into persuading its people to use NFP, I think that the 2-3% statistic really says it all.  Catholics won't use it.
I guess we have a problem of faith in the USA.

Faith in what? I think what it says is that American Catholics exercise a sort of casuistry here and reject the (celibate) hierarchy's teaching for a variety of reasons.


Same thing Orthodox, and not only American. Whoever is sane.
Logged

Love never fails.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #140 on: May 13, 2010, 05:03:15 PM »

Nothing I have said in any way indicates that I think men are the only ones who want to have sex! I am married, and my wife and I have three children and one on the way. So, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I know that my wife enjoys sex very much.

Those who exalt their marital relationships will be humbled at some point.   Wink

I'm exalting marriage, not my own marital relationship. But I do exalt God, who has blessed our marriage. My comments were made in defense of accusations that I imply that women don't enjoy sex.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #141 on: May 13, 2010, 05:09:48 PM »

Too often discussions like these are entirely dominated by men (me included) who cannot see things from the viewpoint of the wife and mother. It is not the men that has to wrestle with questions of their own life and death when health concerns complicate things in a marriage.


Unless I am missing something, women are as free to post on this forum as men.

From an Orthodox perspective, marriage means that man and woman become "one flesh;" therefore the questions of sexuality, life, and death do not merely effect the woman. Whatever happens to my wife affects me profoundly. Seems to me that you have been successfully brainwashed by the "her body, her choice" feminist propaganda.


Selam


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #142 on: May 13, 2010, 05:18:16 PM »

I have to agree with Quinault here:  NFP sounds really good until you try practicing it.  It takes an enormous amount of monitoring, self-control, and communication with your partner.  That's not to say that those things immediately rule NFP out as a possibility and indeed, I think it's a good way (used in conjunction with a barrier contraceptive) to be more responsible and not violate the teachings of the church.  However, biology is often unpredictable.  As much as one can monitor, abstain, etc., there is always the possibility that the calculations are off or the wife misread her body's cues and to me, it is irresponsible in this current economic and sociological climate to just leave it up to chance whether pregnancy occurs.  Do not think I am saying that children are a burden or are unwanted when they are conceived, because I believe they are wonderful and I thank God for the two I have now.  I am saying that medically and financially speaking, sometimes it is better to prevent pregnancy than to become unable to care for yourself and your children.

If you think you shouldn't have children, then don't have sex. If you think sex is vital to your marriage, then don't fear having children. But we have to stop separating physical pleasure, emotional intimacy, and procreation. St. Paul says that it is good for married people to abstain from sex sometimes. So, if you are convinced that your children will suffer and die if you have them, then abstain from sexual relations until you feel otherwise. But if you believe that God will provide, then don't fear; enjoy sex with your spouse and rejoice in all the wonderful things that your sexual union will produce. And don't forget that the Church exists to help us when we need it. I've never heard of an Orthodox Church allowing the children of one of it's members to starve to death.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #143 on: May 13, 2010, 05:24:52 PM »

If you think you shouldn't have children, then don't have sex.

Gebre, but why, WHY? Sex is so important for marriage. Sex sustains marriage. Sexless marriages are usually catastrophic. Giving yourself as a gift in bodily union with your spouse - isn't it wonderful, precious? And also NEEDED? Even if I CONSCIOUSLY, WILLINGLY desire for more children NOT to be born in my marriage?
Logged

Love never fails.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #144 on: May 13, 2010, 05:34:22 PM »

Too often discussions like these are entirely dominated by men (me included) who cannot see things from the viewpoint of the wife and mother.
It is not the men that has to wrestle with questions of their own life and death when health concerns complicate things in a marriage.

There is a 4.1:1 male:female ratio on this forum, so it is natural that every discussion here would be dominated (at least by volume) by the male perspective.
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.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #145 on: May 13, 2010, 06:10:40 PM »

If you think you shouldn't have children, then don't have sex.

Gebre, but why, WHY? Sex is so important for marriage. Sex sustains marriage. Sexless marriages are usually catastrophic. Giving yourself as a gift in bodily union with your spouse - isn't it wonderful, precious? And also NEEDED? Even if I CONSCIOUSLY, WILLINGLY desire for more children NOT to be born in my marriage?


I agree with you, Heorhij, that sex within marriage is not sinful but needful. My concern is that worldly philosophies have influenced our Christian understanding about the purpose and value of human sexuality. We seem to think we know better than God, Who designed sex and intended it to be a great blessing for us. We essentially tell God, "I'll take this part of sex, but I don't want the other part." I think we do a disservice to sexuality and to ourselves when we adopt such an attitude. I also think we dishonor God.

I struggle with it myself. Even with the wonderful children we have and the joy and blessing that they are to us, my wife and I still feel like we shouldn't have more. This society has conditioned me to feel guilty about having children. And I find myself worrying about how we will provide for them, etc. And then I have to shake myself and realize that mindset is from satan, who is the enemy of Life and the hater of children.

Brother, God has BLESSED me! All these people with their fancy houses and nice cars looking at me like I'm the fool. But the Psalmist says, "Behold, children are the Lord's inheritance; the fruit of the womb, His reward. Like arrows in the hand of a mighty one, so are the children of those who were outcasts. Blessed in the man whose quiver is full, he will not be ashamed when he speaks to his enemies at the gate." [Psalm 127:3-5]

I also know that our children have solidified our marriage and brought my wife and I closer to each other. I always feel the greatest sense of intimacy during her pregnancies, and no intimacy or joy can come close to those times when I held her hand and coaxed her through the deliveries of our children. So you see, the intimacies, joys, and pleasures of sexuality trascend the mere physical act. Why sould we want to deny ourselves of the entirety of God's intended blessings for sexuality?


Selam
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 06:12:48 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #146 on: May 13, 2010, 06:32:07 PM »

If you think you shouldn't have children, then don't have sex.

Gebre, but why, WHY? Sex is so important for marriage. Sex sustains marriage. Sexless marriages are usually catastrophic. Giving yourself as a gift in bodily union with your spouse - isn't it wonderful, precious? And also NEEDED? Even if I CONSCIOUSLY, WILLINGLY desire for more children NOT to be born in my marriage?


I agree with you, Heorhij, that sex within marriage is not sinful but needful. My concern is that worldly philosophies have influenced our Christian understanding about the purpose and value of human sexuality. We seem to think we know better than God, Who designed sex and intended it to be a great blessing for us. We essentially tell God, "I'll take this part of sex, but I don't want the other part." I think we do a disservice to sexuality and to ourselves when we adopt such an attitude. I also think we dishonor God.

I don't. I think God placed humans higher than animals. Animals mate for procreation, also having pleasure while doing it. Humans love their spouses and give themselves as a unique, un-replaceable, most precious gift in sexual union. Children can be born as a result of it, or not. It is not FOR having children that we engage in sexual relationship with our spouses. It is for THEM. And I think it's normal and it's what God intends for us.

I struggle with it myself. Even with the wonderful children we have and the joy and blessing that they are to us, my wife and I still feel like we shouldn't have more. This society has conditioned me to feel guilty about having children. And I find myself worrying about how we will provide for them, etc. And then I have to shake myself and realize that mindset is from satan, who is the enemy of Life and the hater of children.

I don't think the society conditions us to feel guilty about having children. Rather, it is increasingly difficult to have many children and care for them adequately. Some people want that, making great sacrifices - and that's great, my hat off to them. Other people do not want to have many children but, rather, want to have two or one or even none, and this is because their priority is something else, not children. Or their prioroty is their two childdren. or their one child. And that's fine, too. It is not necessarily selfish.

Brother, God has BLESSED me! All these people with their fancy houses and nice cars looking at me like I'm the fool. But the Psalmist says, "Behold, children are the Lord's inheritance; the fruit of the womb, His reward. Like arrows in the hand of a mighty one, so are the children of those who were outcasts. Blessed in the man whose quiver is full, he will not be ashamed when he speaks to his enemies at the gate." [Psalm 127:3-5]

But of course children are a blessing, who argues with that. However, different people are blessed differently. Pierre and Marie Curie were blessed differently...

I also know that our children have solidified our marriage and brought my wife and I closer to each other. I always feel the greatest sense of intimacy during her pregnancies, and no intimacy or joy can come close to those times when I held her hand and coaxed her through the deliveries of our children. So you see, the intimacies, joys, and pleasures of sexuality trascend the mere physical act. Why sould we want to deny ourselves of the entirety of God's intended blessings for sexuality?

I am sure there were intimacies, joys, and pleasures of sexuality, of the unique human sexuality, in Pierre and Marie Curie's marriage... Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #147 on: May 13, 2010, 07:02:10 PM »

If you think you shouldn't have children, then don't have sex.

Gebre, but why, WHY? Sex is so important for marriage. Sex sustains marriage. Sexless marriages are usually catastrophic. Giving yourself as a gift in bodily union with your spouse - isn't it wonderful, precious? And also NEEDED? Even if I CONSCIOUSLY, WILLINGLY desire for more children NOT to be born in my marriage?


I agree with you, Heorhij, that sex within marriage is not sinful but needful. My concern is that worldly philosophies have influenced our Christian understanding about the purpose and value of human sexuality. We seem to think we know better than God, Who designed sex and intended it to be a great blessing for us. We essentially tell God, "I'll take this part of sex, but I don't want the other part." I think we do a disservice to sexuality and to ourselves when we adopt such an attitude. I also think we dishonor God.

I don't. I think God placed humans higher than animals. Animals mate for procreation, also having pleasure while doing it. Humans love their spouses and give themselves as a unique, un-replaceable, most precious gift in sexual union. Children can be born as a result of it, or not. It is not FOR having children that we engage in sexual relationship with our spouses. It is for THEM. And I think it's normal and it's what God intends for us.

I struggle with it myself. Even with the wonderful children we have and the joy and blessing that they are to us, my wife and I still feel like we shouldn't have more. This society has conditioned me to feel guilty about having children. And I find myself worrying about how we will provide for them, etc. And then I have to shake myself and realize that mindset is from satan, who is the enemy of Life and the hater of children.

I don't think the society conditions us to feel guilty about having children. Rather, it is increasingly difficult to have many children and care for them adequately. Some people want that, making great sacrifices - and that's great, my hat off to them. Other people do not want to have many children but, rather, want to have two or one or even none, and this is because their priority is something else, not children. Or their prioroty is their two childdren. or their one child. And that's fine, too. It is not necessarily selfish.

Brother, God has BLESSED me! All these people with their fancy houses and nice cars looking at me like I'm the fool. But the Psalmist says, "Behold, children are the Lord's inheritance; the fruit of the womb, His reward. Like arrows in the hand of a mighty one, so are the children of those who were outcasts. Blessed in the man whose quiver is full, he will not be ashamed when he speaks to his enemies at the gate." [Psalm 127:3-5]

But of course children are a blessing, who argues with that. However, different people are blessed differently. Pierre and Marie Curie were blessed differently...

I also know that our children have solidified our marriage and brought my wife and I closer to each other. I always feel the greatest sense of intimacy during her pregnancies, and no intimacy or joy can come close to those times when I held her hand and coaxed her through the deliveries of our children. So you see, the intimacies, joys, and pleasures of sexuality trascend the mere physical act. Why sould we want to deny ourselves of the entirety of God's intended blessings for sexuality?

I am sure there were intimacies, joys, and pleasures of sexuality, of the unique human sexuality, in Pierre and Marie Curie's marriage... Smiley


Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know who Pierre and Marie Cuire are.  Embarrassed

I think the divorce rate, the abortion rate, the STD rate, the child abuse rate, and many other things indicate that we grossly misunderstand God's intention and plan for sexuality and marriage. The evidence speaks for itself. Some find pleasure in fornication; some find pleasure in mere copulation; but I find pleasure in procreation.  Smiley Call me an animal if you want to.


Selam  
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 07:04:17 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #148 on: May 13, 2010, 07:12:05 PM »

So, it seems to me, Gebre, that you have the world divided neatly into two categories: those lucky souls like yourself who are capable of procreating and therefore, are permitted to have sex, and those pathetic losers, who, for whatever tragic reason, are not capable of procreating, and therefore, are forever banned from experiencing the joys of human intimacy with their spouses.  Cry
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #149 on: May 13, 2010, 07:52:36 PM »

So, it seems to me, Gebre, that you have the world divided neatly into two categories: those lucky souls like yourself who are capable of procreating and therefore, are permitted to have sex, and those pathetic losers, who, for whatever tragic reason, are not capable of procreating, and therefore, are forever banned from experiencing the joys of human intimacy with their spouses.  Cry


 Huh  How you could possibly derive such an idea from anything I have said is beyond comprehension.


Selam
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 07:53:21 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #150 on: May 13, 2010, 08:14:39 PM »

Forgive me if I misunderstood, Gebre, but it seems to me you are promoting something like sex is only to be for procreative purposes, etc. I've also understood that some Orthodox people have this notion that, if a couple is not able to procreate, then they might as well live together as brother and sister, which seems terribly sad and unchristian to me. But I hope I am mistaken and that you do not subscribe to this devastatingly sad viewpoint.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,509


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #151 on: May 13, 2010, 09:07:33 PM »

The problem with your line of logic/thought is that it means that sex is only permissible when it is open to life. If a woman/man is infertile then they should not be having sex. You likely will say something along the lines of- well, as long as they don't do anything to prevent conception it it open to life. But there are many women and men out there now that are incapable of having children that are not wed yet. Your logic would mean that those that are incapable of procreating should not wed.  And once a couple is beyond childbearing years they need not have sex because it can not be procreative. Again, you will likely say that as long as it is "open to life" that it is OK. But that is a sort of stupid argument. How can a woman without a womb *like my mother in-law*  be "open to life? Or a woman without any ovaries *like my mother,* or a man that knows that he has low sperm count and poor motility *like my brother in law* possibly  entertain the concept that they are "open to life" when it is IMPOSSIBLE to conceive.?

Sex is NOT primarily for procreation. This is quite a dead horse and it was beaten to death years ago by others and within the last 2 years by me. I would rather have you look thru some of the tabs to the thread then plagiarize myself.

In short- either sex has a dual purpose of procreation and unity, or it has a single purpose of procreation with the benefit of unity. You seem to be espousing the later Gebre. If sex has a dual purpose then some amount of pregnancy prevention should be allowed and infertile sex should be allowed. Otherwise you are sounding VERY Roman Catholic to me.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 09:27:01 PM by Quinault » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,909


"My god is greater."


« Reply #152 on: May 13, 2010, 09:12:36 PM »

It was the intention that the Fathers focused on, not the method. If your intention was to have sex while avoiding the possibility (or probability) or procreation, then (if they spoke on the subject at all) they considered you in the wrong.

Yes. And I consider them to be in the wrong on this matter, entirely.
I think these Holy Fathers have spoken against the greater consensus of the Church in this matter.

That's a very interesting point. I think I agree with you. Unfortunately, this "broader consensus" is pretty voiceless, or conformist to the "wisdom of the Fathers," or brainwashed to a certain extent.

In other words, this "broader consensus" is a fantasy you've concocted for ideological ends, like the "revolutionary Proletariat" in the mind of the Marxist. The masses are too "brainwashed" and "conformist" to bring it to realization.

I don't think this thread is dominated by the "male perspective" so much as the (crypto) Protestant perspective.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,390



« Reply #153 on: May 13, 2010, 09:24:00 PM »

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know who Pierre and Marie Cuire are.  Embarrassed


Pierre and Marie (nee Sklodowska) Curie: A married couple who were brilliant scientists in physics and chemistry.  They worked with radioactivity and were the discoverers of Radium. They won a Nobel Prize together. Marie later won another Nobel Prize after her husband's tragic death in a street accident. They were devoted to each other and had two daughters

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/marie-curie-bio.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/pierre-curie-bio.html



Ebor
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 09:27:26 PM by Ebor » Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #154 on: May 13, 2010, 10:01:21 PM »

The problem with your line of logic/thought is that it means that sex is only permissible when it is open to life. If a woman/man is infertile then they should not be having sex. You likely will say something along the lines of- well, as long as they don't do anything to prevent conception it it open to life. But there are many women and men out there now that are incapable of having children that are not wed yet. Your logic would mean that those that are incapable of procreating should not wed.  And once a couple is beyond childbearing years they need not have sex because it can not be procreative. Again, you will likely say that as long as it is "open to life" that it is OK. But that is a sort of stupid argument. How can a woman without a womb *like my mother in-law*  be "open to life? Or a woman without any ovaries *like my mother,* or a man that knows that he has low sperm count and poor motility *like my brother in law* possibly  entertain the concept that they are "open to life" when it is IMPOSSIBLE to conceive.?

Sex is NOT primarily for procreation. This is quite a dead horse and it was beaten to death years ago by others and within the last 2 years by me. I would rather have you look thru some of the tabs to the thread then plagiarize myself.

In short- either sex has a dual purpose of procreation and unity, or it has a single purpose of procreation with the benefit of unity. You seem to be espousing the later Gebre. If sex has a dual purpose then some amount of pregnancy prevention should be allowed and infertile sex should be allowed. Otherwise you are sounding VERY Roman Catholic to me.


Just read my words and don't assume things. Some of you want me to say something I'm not saying. I've been very clear that sex is not only for procreation.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Blissfully Unaware
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Converting to Oriental Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Syriac Orthodox
Posts: 42


« Reply #155 on: May 13, 2010, 10:34:20 PM »

Hi everyone, OP here  Cheesy

After reading the 100+ posts on this topic, I am going to conclude that the ideas on this issue are diverse and unique to each individual. When God willing I find someone to marry, I will have this discussion with him and see how he feels about it.

Gebre, but why, WHY? Sex is so important for marriage. Sex sustains marriage. Sexless marriages are usually catastrophic. Giving yourself as a gift in bodily union with your spouse - isn't it wonderful, precious? And also NEEDED? Even if I CONSCIOUSLY, WILLINGLY desire for more children NOT to be born in my marriage?

That was a beautiful quote Heorhij, I couldn't agree more. I hope I find a husband who shares this view!
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #156 on: May 14, 2010, 08:29:44 AM »

It was the intention that the Fathers focused on, not the method. If your intention was to have sex while avoiding the possibility (or probability) or procreation, then (if they spoke on the subject at all) they considered you in the wrong.

Yes. And I consider them to be in the wrong on this matter, entirely.
I think these Holy Fathers have spoken against the greater consensus of the Church in this matter.

That's a very interesting point. I think I agree with you. Unfortunately, this "broader consensus" is pretty voiceless, or conformist to the "wisdom of the Fathers," or brainwashed to a certain extent.

In other words, this "broader consensus" is a fantasy you've concocted for ideological ends, like the "revolutionary Proletariat" in the mind of the Marxist. The masses are too "brainwashed" and "conformist" to bring it to realization.

Ah, another reader of my heart. Smiley

No, this is not a Marxist speaking in me. Just plain observation. Married people may arrive to the conclusion that teachings about sex as something necessarily open to procreation or else sinful is a terrible, dehumanizing, destructive teaching. I did. I know that I am not alone. Moreover, I suspect that there are millions of people who are like me. So, because I have these observations and these thoughts, I make my hypothesis about people within the Church being brainwashed or forced into being silent on these matters - otherwise, there would be already a different teaching.

I don't think this thread is dominated by the "male perspective" so much as the (crypto) Protestant perspective.

Fine, I don't mind being viewed as a very bad Orthodox in certain issues.
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #157 on: May 14, 2010, 08:31:48 AM »

Hi everyone, OP here  Cheesy

After reading the 100+ posts on this topic, I am going to conclude that the ideas on this issue are diverse and unique to each individual. When God willing I find someone to marry, I will have this discussion with him and see how he feels about it.

Gebre, but why, WHY? Sex is so important for marriage. Sex sustains marriage. Sexless marriages are usually catastrophic. Giving yourself as a gift in bodily union with your spouse - isn't it wonderful, precious? And also NEEDED? Even if I CONSCIOUSLY, WILLINGLY desire for more children NOT to be born in my marriage?

That was a beautiful quote Heorhij, I couldn't agree more. I hope I find a husband who shares this view!

Thank you, dear OP sister.Smiley "Seek, and you shall find." "Grant this, o Lord."
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #158 on: May 14, 2010, 09:04:40 AM »

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know who Pierre and Marie Cuire are.  Embarrassed


Pierre and Marie (nee Sklodowska) Curie: A married couple who were brilliant scientists in physics and chemistry.  They worked with radioactivity and were the discoverers of Radium. They won a Nobel Prize together. Marie later won another Nobel Prize after her husband's tragic death in a street accident. They were devoted to each other and had two daughters

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/marie-curie-bio.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/pierre-curie-bio.html



Ebor

Thank you, Ebor. Yes, they were both wonderful scientists, physicists. I just used them as an example of a married couple for whom home and many children were not a priority, obviously. BTW, one of their daughters, Irene Joliot-Curie, also became an outstanding scientist and a Nobel prize winner in chemistry. She and her husband Frederic (who also signed his name as Joliot-Curie) had two children, and again the children became outstanding scientists (daughter a physicist and son a biologist).
Logged

Love never fails.
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #159 on: May 17, 2010, 02:31:42 PM »

I have to agree with Quinault here:  NFP sounds really good until you try practicing it.  It takes an enormous amount of monitoring, self-control, and communication with your partner.  That's not to say that those things immediately rule NFP out as a possibility and indeed, I think it's a good way (used in conjunction with a barrier contraceptive) to be more responsible and not violate the teachings of the church.  However, biology is often unpredictable.  As much as one can monitor, abstain, etc., there is always the possibility that the calculations are off or the wife misread her body's cues and to me, it is irresponsible in this current economic and sociological climate to just leave it up to chance whether pregnancy occurs.  Do not think I am saying that children are a burden or are unwanted when they are conceived, because I believe they are wonderful and I thank God for the two I have now.  I am saying that medically and financially speaking, sometimes it is better to prevent pregnancy than to become unable to care for yourself and your children.

Not to mention at NFP does NOT work when the woman ovulates more than once a month, which seems to be indicated in a larger proportion of women than once believed.  Grin

Sometimes it does become necessary to prevent pregnancy, but without resorting to chemical abortificient methods to do so. I think that is the point where the father's began making note, as women have been using various plants and ingredients to induce abortions long before Sanger came along with that ''marvelous'' little pill. The idea in society is to do anything, or ingest anything that will prevent a person from having to be 'burdened' with the care of a child. That is only because sexuality has left the safety and sanctity of marriage to be a sport. It would, even aside from Church sanctions towards virginity and purity, be more beneficial to remain chaste until marriage. Chastity serves a person physically, emotionally and spiritually-its just incredibly difficult to maintain.
As far as sex within marriage, the only Orthodox rules about it is that folks were expected to refrain from physical intimacy before Communion and during fasting periods. Not so much as to be a wet blanket, but to focus on the person's spiritual growth OVER the physical pleasures of life. Its not fun of course, especially when you and your partner get hardly any time together of any sort.
Each situation is different, so speaking to one's priest whenever a unique situation comes up would be of great merit. We did that whole 'quiverful' thing as protestants, where folks actually trust God for their family size and take His commandments to multiply literally. Some are quite intent of this lifestyle of faith, and I can't fault them. For us life went willy shortly before our conversion when one of our children started to regress. Come to find out she has a rare genetic but non hereditary condition. So while its not like we would have another child with the disorder, our care for this specific child is financially overwhelming. And it always will be. Our priest said he could not ''condone'' a surgery for dh, but would ask for forgiveness on his behalf if he went that direction. I don't believe ORthodoxy is about being rigid or hardlined. Most of the rules we see, however poorly explained when posts devolve on here, are meant for our spiritual gain over the long haul. We do the best we can.

and besides, some of us have done our part already. Its time for the younger set to make some Orthodox babies... Tongue
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,509


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #160 on: May 17, 2010, 03:07:47 PM »

I would be happy to have a couple more Orthodox babies! I don't think that is likely, so hopefully I can adopt a couple more native american children and raise them in the Orthodox church Cheesy
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #161 on: May 17, 2010, 04:09:30 PM »

LOL, that's one way to increase parish membership; every married couple adopts a child and raises them Orthodox.

Instant membership growth in every parish!!

 laugh  laugh  laugh
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #162 on: May 17, 2010, 05:13:55 PM »

That does sound like a plan! despite our current family size I would still love to adopt.  Trouble is our parish is so tiny there are no prospects for marriage within several hours. We need a family retreat for our Orthodox kids to meet once we adopt them, as I have heard round these parts that Orthodox spouses are hard to find.
Logged
xuxana
babygirl
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 92


i♡ΙΧΘΥΣ!


« Reply #163 on: May 17, 2010, 07:48:24 PM »

Unfortunately, what Gebre expressed above seems to be a rather prevalent view among the Orthodox clergy and laity. At least on the Internet forums.  Grin

Personally, as I wrote many times, I believe it's a bunch of BS.  Cry (But that's just me.)

Most importantly, however, - there is no "one-size-fits-it-all" dogma about non-abortive contraception in Orthodoxy. It is PRINCIPALLY a PASTORAL issue, NOT a dogmatic one. There are no papal encyclicas that are "binding" to us, Orthodox, in regards of when do we have children after we marry, how many children we have, how do we "space" our children etc. etc. etc. Instead, for us there are our priests, whom we are supposed to ask for their blessing for what we have in mind regarding our plans to have or not to have children.
QFT

like totally.
Logged

Ephesians 6:10-18
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,509


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #164 on: May 17, 2010, 09:01:34 PM »

That does sound like a plan! despite our current family size I would still love to adopt.  Trouble is our parish is so tiny there are no prospects for marriage within several hours. We need a family retreat for our Orthodox kids to meet once we adopt them, as I have heard round these parts that Orthodox spouses are hard to find.

I would be really happy if there were more events in our area for Orthodox families and kids. There are a few but they are REALLY expensive.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #165 on: May 19, 2010, 08:34:28 PM »

Unfortunately, what Gebre expressed above seems to be a rather prevalent view among the Orthodox clergy and laity. At least on the Internet forums.  Grin

Personally, as I wrote many times, I believe it's a bunch of BS.  Cry (But that's just me.)

Most importantly, however, - there is no "one-size-fits-it-all" dogma about non-abortive contraception in Orthodoxy. It is PRINCIPALLY a PASTORAL issue, NOT a dogmatic one. There are no papal encyclicas that are "binding" to us, Orthodox, in regards of when do we have children after we marry, how many children we have, how do we "space" our children etc. etc. etc. Instead, for us there are our priests, whom we are supposed to ask for their blessing for what we have in mind regarding our plans to have or not to have children.
QFT

like totally.


It is really quite simple. Life is a blessing, not a curse. In this fallen world, there will never be perfect or ideal circumstances in which to conceive and give birth to children. There are proven and effective means of not conceiving for those who feel it is best not to have children. But the use of artificial birth control is an action that is contrary to Life. When it doesn't work (and no birth control methods are 100% effective), then what? People then perceive the conceived child as a problem rather than a blessing.

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.

But if you prove me wrong then I will concede. But so far, the arguments against my position on this matter have all been based on subjective interpretations rather than objective Church Tradition. You advocates of birth control are sounding quite Protestant to me. Wink


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,629


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #166 on: May 19, 2010, 08:44:39 PM »


Quote
And you can not use condoms

That's a discussion that need to take place between you, your wife, and your priest.


Thanks for your reply. Also, I am a female, and unmarried (I'm asking this before I convert), and I don't want to ask my priest because I feel like it would not be appropriate to ask him about this.

I'd have to ask a priest if I could use condoms???

Please don't worry about this and certainly don't let this stop you from converting.

There is no Puritanical Moral Code loose within our Parishes. Yes, restraint of passions is a good thing to practice but I think you will find us to be only conservative on this point... not nuts.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #167 on: May 20, 2010, 12:12:16 AM »

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.
But when you present your interpretation of our Tradition on an Internet discussion board, your condemnation of artificial birth control comes across as an unnecessarily dogmatic opinion.  Why should your interpretation of Tradition trump the interpretation of Tradition that guides the pastoral practice of so many of our priests and bishops?  Are you somehow more qualified to interpret Tradition for us than they?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 12:14:16 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #168 on: May 20, 2010, 12:39:13 AM »

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.
But when you present your interpretation of our Tradition on an Internet discussion board, your condemnation of artificial birth control comes across as an unnecessarily dogmatic opinion.  Why should your interpretation of Tradition trump the interpretation of Tradition that guides the pastoral practice of so many of our priests and bishops?  Are you somehow more qualified to interpret Tradition for us than they?

Neither my interpretation nor the interpretation of Priests and Bishops trumps the 2,000 year old interpetation of the Church. That's why I said that I will gladly stand corrected if anyone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church canons that clearly advocate or condone the use of artificial birth control. My opinion on the matter is based on objective ecclesiastical Teaching and Tradition, not on my own subjective ideas.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #169 on: May 20, 2010, 01:00:40 AM »

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.
But when you present your interpretation of our Tradition on an Internet discussion board, your condemnation of artificial birth control comes across as an unnecessarily dogmatic opinion.  Why should your interpretation of Tradition trump the interpretation of Tradition that guides the pastoral practice of so many of our priests and bishops?  Are you somehow more qualified to interpret Tradition for us than they?

Neither my interpretation nor the interpretation of Priests and Bishops trumps the 2,000 year old interpetation of the Church. That's why I said that I will gladly stand corrected if anyone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church canons that clearly advocate or condone the use of artificial birth control. My opinion on the matter is based on objective ecclesiastical Teaching and Tradition, not on my own subjective ideas.
You're missing my point, though.  You continue to present your condemnation of artificial birth control--that is to say, your interpretation of Tradition--as though it IS the 2,000-year-old Tradition of the Church.  I don't doubt that you base your opinion solely on Holy Tradition and not on any subjective ideas, but the fact remains that your opinion is still your opinion and that others will base their opinions solely on Holy Tradition and still disagree with you.  If you believe the most logical conclusion from Holy Tradition is to condemn artificial birth control and you and your wife strive to live according to this dictate, then I commend you for your zeal to live in perfect integrity with your Christian conscience--I'm not even going to try to prove you wrong, simply because the Fathers have traditionally spoken against artificial birth control.  Just recognize that when you present such strong beliefs on an Internet discussion board, you do well to respect the opinions of others by not being so dogmatic in how you state yours.  You seem to overlook the fact, which others have stated here, that the Church has also blessed priests and bishops to exercise pastoral discernment and apply the Church's traditional stand on ABC with less strictness than you may like.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 01:05:26 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #170 on: May 20, 2010, 01:09:51 AM »

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.
But when you present your interpretation of our Tradition on an Internet discussion board, your condemnation of artificial birth control comes across as an unnecessarily dogmatic opinion.  Why should your interpretation of Tradition trump the interpretation of Tradition that guides the pastoral practice of so many of our priests and bishops?  Are you somehow more qualified to interpret Tradition for us than they?

Neither my interpretation nor the interpretation of Priests and Bishops trumps the 2,000 year old interpetation of the Church. That's why I said that I will gladly stand corrected if anyone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church canons that clearly advocate or condone the use of artificial birth control. My opinion on the matter is based on objective ecclesiastical Teaching and Tradition, not on my own subjective ideas.
You're missing my point, though.  You're presenting your condemnation of artificial birth control--that is to say, your interpretation of Tradition--as though it IS the 2,000-year-old Tradition of the Church.  I don't doubt that you base your opinion solely on Holy Tradition and not on any subjective ideas, but the fact remains that your opinion is still your opinion and that others will base their opinions solely on Holy Tradition and still disagree with you.  If you believe the most logical conclusion from Holy Tradition is to condemn artificial birth control and you and your wife strive to live according to this dictate, then I commend you for your zeal to live in perfect integrity with your Christian conscience--I'm not even going to try to prove you wrong, simply because the Fathers have traditionally condemned artificial birth control.  Just recognize that when you present such strong beliefs on an Internet discussion board, you do well to respect the opinions of others by not being so dogmatic in how you state yours.  You seem to overlook the fact, which others have stated here, that priests and bishops may need to exercise pastoral discernment and apply the Church's traditional stand on ABC with less strictness than you may like.


Respectfully, I have repeatedly stated that I am open to ecclesiastical evidence that proves my position is erroneous. Regarding matters of morality, the Church is often if not always dogmatic. Just because certain Orthodox Priests, Bishops, and laymen choose to ignore the dogmatic Teachings of the Church does not mean that I shall do the same. Quite frankly, I will never respect any ideologies or human opinions that undermine the sanctity of human Life.

Orthodoxy is not Protestantism, where individuals pick and choose the "church" that suits their own subjective belief system.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #171 on: May 20, 2010, 01:22:18 AM »

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.
But when you present your interpretation of our Tradition on an Internet discussion board, your condemnation of artificial birth control comes across as an unnecessarily dogmatic opinion.  Why should your interpretation of Tradition trump the interpretation of Tradition that guides the pastoral practice of so many of our priests and bishops?  Are you somehow more qualified to interpret Tradition for us than they?

Neither my interpretation nor the interpretation of Priests and Bishops trumps the 2,000 year old interpetation of the Church. That's why I said that I will gladly stand corrected if anyone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church canons that clearly advocate or condone the use of artificial birth control. My opinion on the matter is based on objective ecclesiastical Teaching and Tradition, not on my own subjective ideas.
You're missing my point, though.  You're presenting your condemnation of artificial birth control--that is to say, your interpretation of Tradition--as though it IS the 2,000-year-old Tradition of the Church.  I don't doubt that you base your opinion solely on Holy Tradition and not on any subjective ideas, but the fact remains that your opinion is still your opinion and that others will base their opinions solely on Holy Tradition and still disagree with you.  If you believe the most logical conclusion from Holy Tradition is to condemn artificial birth control and you and your wife strive to live according to this dictate, then I commend you for your zeal to live in perfect integrity with your Christian conscience--I'm not even going to try to prove you wrong, simply because the Fathers have traditionally condemned artificial birth control.  Just recognize that when you present such strong beliefs on an Internet discussion board, you do well to respect the opinions of others by not being so dogmatic in how you state yours.  You seem to overlook the fact, which others have stated here, that priests and bishops may need to exercise pastoral discernment and apply the Church's traditional stand on ABC with less strictness than you may like.


Respectfully, I have repeatedly stated that I am open to ecclesiastical evidence that proves my position is erroneous.
What's the point in us doing so?  You're position is NOT erroneous; it's just too strict.

Regarding matters of morality, the Church is often if not always dogmatic.
And, more importantly, pastoral.

Just because certain Orthodox Priests, Bishops, and laymen choose to ignore the dogmatic Teachings of the Church does not mean that I shall do the same.
Please do not interpret the pastoral practice of oikonomia in such a demeaning way as to accuse those pastors who practice it of ignoring the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

Quite frankly, I will never respect any ideologies or human opinions that undermine the sanctity of human Life.
And no one's asking you to do so.

Orthodoxy is not Protestantism, where individuals pick and choose the "church" that suits their own subjective belief system.
Oikonomia is not about individuals picking and choosing whatever suits their own subjective belief systems.  It's about pastors discerning specific spiritual needs and applying the discipline of the Church in ways that offer the most salvific benefit to each individual and family under their care so that, if possible, all might be saved.  I'm sorry if you can't understand this concept, but you can at least stop condemning it.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 01:24:59 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #172 on: May 20, 2010, 04:00:14 AM »

My replies below in red:

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.
But when you present your interpretation of our Tradition on an Internet discussion board, your condemnation of artificial birth control comes across as an unnecessarily dogmatic opinion.  Why should your interpretation of Tradition trump the interpretation of Tradition that guides the pastoral practice of so many of our priests and bishops?  Are you somehow more qualified to interpret Tradition for us than they?

Neither my interpretation nor the interpretation of Priests and Bishops trumps the 2,000 year old interpetation of the Church. That's why I said that I will gladly stand corrected if anyone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church canons that clearly advocate or condone the use of artificial birth control. My opinion on the matter is based on objective ecclesiastical Teaching and Tradition, not on my own subjective ideas.
You're missing my point, though.  You're presenting your condemnation of artificial birth control--that is to say, your interpretation of Tradition--as though it IS the 2,000-year-old Tradition of the Church.  I don't doubt that you base your opinion solely on Holy Tradition and not on any subjective ideas, but the fact remains that your opinion is still your opinion and that others will base their opinions solely on Holy Tradition and still disagree with you.  If you believe the most logical conclusion from Holy Tradition is to condemn artificial birth control and you and your wife strive to live according to this dictate, then I commend you for your zeal to live in perfect integrity with your Christian conscience--I'm not even going to try to prove you wrong, simply because the Fathers have traditionally condemned artificial birth control.  Just recognize that when you present such strong beliefs on an Internet discussion board, you do well to respect the opinions of others by not being so dogmatic in how you state yours.  You seem to overlook the fact, which others have stated here, that priests and bishops may need to exercise pastoral discernment and apply the Church's traditional stand on ABC with less strictness than you may like.


Respectfully, I have repeatedly stated that I am open to ecclesiastical evidence that proves my position is erroneous.
What's the point in us doing so?  You're position is NOT erroneous; it's just too strict.


So you are the arbiter of what is too strict?


Regarding matters of morality, the Church is often if not always dogmatic.
And, more importantly, pastoral.


A) This is a subjective comment.
B) Your comment promotes a false dichotomy. The pastoral role of the Church is never opposed to the dogmas of the Church. In fact, the pastoral role is to guide and assist us lay people in adhering to the dogmas of the Church, not to absolve us of our responsibility to live according to the dogmas of the Church.



Just because certain Orthodox Priests, Bishops, and laymen choose to ignore the dogmatic Teachings of the Church does not mean that I shall do the same.
Please do not interpret the pastoral practice of oikonomia in such a demeaning way as to accuse those pastors who practice it of ignoring the dogmatic teachings of the Church.


I do not demean those Bishops and Priests who practice true "oikonomia." But sadly, some in the name of "oikonomia" demean themselves by elevating their own subjective ideals over and above that which the Church has historically and consistently taught.


Quite frankly, I will never respect any ideologies or human opinions that undermine the sanctity of human Life.
And no one's asking you to do so.

Orthodoxy is not Protestantism, where individuals pick and choose the "church" that suits their own subjective belief system.
Oikonomia is not about individuals picking and choosing whatever suits their own subjective belief systems.  It's about pastors discerning specific spiritual needs and applying the discipline of the Church in ways that offer the most salvific benefit to each individual and family under their care so that, if possible, all might be saved.  I'm sorry if you can't understand this concept, but you can at least stop condemning it.


You are severely perverting the meaning of "Oikonomia." Salvation is not the result of "defining deviancy down." The moral laws of the Church are not subject to negotiation. In this world of moral relativism, the Orthodox Church is the objective Light of the world. Priests are not supposed to adjust the Church's morality according to the whims and desires of the individual members of their parishes. Instead, Priests are supposed to encourage, exhort, love, and inspire the members of their flock to live according to the Teachings of the Faith.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #173 on: May 20, 2010, 04:42:23 AM »

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.
But when you present your interpretation of our Tradition on an Internet discussion board, your condemnation of artificial birth control comes across as an unnecessarily dogmatic opinion.  Why should your interpretation of Tradition trump the interpretation of Tradition that guides the pastoral practice of so many of our priests and bishops?  Are you somehow more qualified to interpret Tradition for us than they?

Neither my interpretation nor the interpretation of Priests and Bishops trumps the 2,000 year old interpetation of the Church. That's why I said that I will gladly stand corrected if anyone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church canons that clearly advocate or condone the use of artificial birth control. My opinion on the matter is based on objective ecclesiastical Teaching and Tradition, not on my own subjective ideas.
You're missing my point, though.  You're presenting your condemnation of artificial birth control--that is to say, your interpretation of Tradition--as though it IS the 2,000-year-old Tradition of the Church.  I don't doubt that you base your opinion solely on Holy Tradition and not on any subjective ideas, but the fact remains that your opinion is still your opinion and that others will base their opinions solely on Holy Tradition and still disagree with you.  If you believe the most logical conclusion from Holy Tradition is to condemn artificial birth control and you and your wife strive to live according to this dictate, then I commend you for your zeal to live in perfect integrity with your Christian conscience--I'm not even going to try to prove you wrong, simply because the Fathers have traditionally condemned artificial birth control.  Just recognize that when you present such strong beliefs on an Internet discussion board, you do well to respect the opinions of others by not being so dogmatic in how you state yours.  You seem to overlook the fact, which others have stated here, that priests and bishops may need to exercise pastoral discernment and apply the Church's traditional stand on ABC with less strictness than you may like.


Respectfully, I have repeatedly stated that I am open to ecclesiastical evidence that proves my position is erroneous.
What's the point in us doing so?  You're position is NOT erroneous; it's just too strict.

So you are the arbiter of what is too strict?
Why do you ask?  You seem to be setting yourself up as the arbiter of what proper pastoral practice is regarding ABC.  Am I not permitted to say you're being too strict?

Regarding matters of morality, the Church is often if not always dogmatic.
And, more importantly, pastoral.

A) This is a subjective comment.
How so?  I think my comment no more subjective than your comment that the Church is often if not always dogmatic.

B) Your comment promotes a false dichotomy.
How so?  My use of the conjunction "AND" logically puts forth a "BOTH-AND" relationship (i.e., the Church is BOTH dogmatic AND pastoral), not an "EITHER-OR" dichotomy.

The pastoral role of the Church is never opposed to the dogmas of the Church.
I never said they were.  You're putting words into my mouth.  Please stop.

In fact, the pastoral role is to guide and assist us lay people in adhering to the dogmas of the Church, not to absolve us of our responsibility to live according to the dogmas of the Church.
But whoever elevated an opposition to artificial birth control to the level of dogma?

Just because certain Orthodox Priests, Bishops, and laymen choose to ignore the dogmatic Teachings of the Church does not mean that I shall do the same.
Please do not interpret the pastoral practice of oikonomia in such a demeaning way as to accuse those pastors who practice it of ignoring the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

I do not demean those Bishops and Priests who practice true "oikonomia." But sadly, some in the name of "oikonomia" demean themselves by elevating their own subjective ideals over and above that which the Church has historically and consistently taught.
Really?  Can you give me examples?

Quite frankly, I will never respect any ideologies or human opinions that undermine the sanctity of human Life.
And no one's asking you to do so.

Orthodoxy is not Protestantism, where individuals pick and choose the "church" that suits their own subjective belief system.
Oikonomia is not about individuals picking and choosing whatever suits their own subjective belief systems.  It's about pastors discerning specific spiritual needs and applying the discipline of the Church in ways that offer the most salvific benefit to each individual and family under their care so that, if possible, all might be saved.  I'm sorry if you can't understand this concept, but you can at least stop condemning it.


You are severely perverting the meaning of "Oikonomia." Salvation is not the result of "defining deviancy down."
Again, you're putting words into my mouth, for I never defined oikonomia as "defining deviancy down".  That is purely your judgment of what I said--a judgment that totally discredits spiritual discernment when it doesn't agree with your dogmaticism, btw.

The moral laws of the Church are not subject to negotiation.
Who's defining opposition to ABC as an unbreakable moral law of the Church?  Can you give me evidence that the Church ever did call her opposition (if I may use such a strong word in this context) to ABC an unbreakable moral law?  (Note the key word: "unbreakable".)

In this world of moral relativism, the Orthodox Church is the objective Light of the world. Priests are not supposed to adjust the Church's morality according to the whims and desires of the individual members of their parishes.
Again, I never said that.  Please read carefully what I actually write and not what you want me to say.

Instead, Priests are supposed to encourage, exhort, love, and inspire the members of their flock to live according to the Teachings of the Faith.
Of course they are!  I never denied that.  If you would actually read what I write and stop putting words into my mouth, you'd actually see that.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 04:52:14 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #174 on: May 20, 2010, 04:56:04 AM »

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.
But when you present your interpretation of our Tradition on an Internet discussion board, your condemnation of artificial birth control comes across as an unnecessarily dogmatic opinion.  Why should your interpretation of Tradition trump the interpretation of Tradition that guides the pastoral practice of so many of our priests and bishops?  Are you somehow more qualified to interpret Tradition for us than they?

Neither my interpretation nor the interpretation of Priests and Bishops trumps the 2,000 year old interpetation of the Church. That's why I said that I will gladly stand corrected if anyone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church canons that clearly advocate or condone the use of artificial birth control. My opinion on the matter is based on objective ecclesiastical Teaching and Tradition, not on my own subjective ideas.
You're missing my point, though.  You're presenting your condemnation of artificial birth control--that is to say, your interpretation of Tradition--as though it IS the 2,000-year-old Tradition of the Church.  I don't doubt that you base your opinion solely on Holy Tradition and not on any subjective ideas, but the fact remains that your opinion is still your opinion and that others will base their opinions solely on Holy Tradition and still disagree with you.  If you believe the most logical conclusion from Holy Tradition is to condemn artificial birth control and you and your wife strive to live according to this dictate, then I commend you for your zeal to live in perfect integrity with your Christian conscience--I'm not even going to try to prove you wrong, simply because the Fathers have traditionally condemned artificial birth control.  Just recognize that when you present such strong beliefs on an Internet discussion board, you do well to respect the opinions of others by not being so dogmatic in how you state yours.  You seem to overlook the fact, which others have stated here, that priests and bishops may need to exercise pastoral discernment and apply the Church's traditional stand on ABC with less strictness than you may like.


Respectfully, I have repeatedly stated that I am open to ecclesiastical evidence that proves my position is erroneous.
What's the point in us doing so?  You're position is NOT erroneous; it's just too strict.

So you are the arbiter of what is too strict?
Why do you ask?  You seem to be setting yourself up to be the arbiter of what proper pastoral practice is regarding ABC.  Am I not permitted to say you're being too strict?

Regarding matters of morality, the Church is often if not always dogmatic.
And, more importantly, pastoral.

A) This is a subjective comment.
How so?  I think my comment no more subjective than your comment that the Church is often if not always dogmatic.

B) Your comment promotes a false dichotomy.
How so?  My use of the conjunction "AND" logically puts forth a "BOTH-AND" relationship (i.e., the Church is BOTH dogmatic AND pastoral), not an "EITHER-OR" dichotomy.

The pastoral role of the Church is never opposed to the dogmas of the Church.
I never said they were.  You're putting words into my mouth.  Please stop.

In fact, the pastoral role is to guide and assist us lay people in adhering to the dogmas of the Church, not to absolve us of our responsibility to live according to the dogmas of the Church.
But whoever elevated an opposition to artificial birth control to the level of dogma?

Just because certain Orthodox Priests, Bishops, and laymen choose to ignore the dogmatic Teachings of the Church does not mean that I shall do the same.
Please do not interpret the pastoral practice of oikonomia in such a demeaning way as to accuse those pastors who practice it of ignoring the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

I do not demean those Bishops and Priests who practice true "oikonomia." But sadly, some in the name of "oikonomia" demean themselves by elevating their own subjective ideals over and above that which the Church has historically and consistently taught.
Really?  Can you give me examples?

Quite frankly, I will never respect any ideologies or human opinions that undermine the sanctity of human Life.
And no one's asking you to do so.

Orthodoxy is not Protestantism, where individuals pick and choose the "church" that suits their own subjective belief system.
Oikonomia is not about individuals picking and choosing whatever suits their own subjective belief systems.  It's about pastors discerning specific spiritual needs and applying the discipline of the Church in ways that offer the most salvific benefit to each individual and family under their care so that, if possible, all might be saved.  I'm sorry if you can't understand this concept, but you can at least stop condemning it.


You are severely perverting the meaning of "Oikonomia." Salvation is not the result of "defining deviancy down."
Again, you're putting words into my mouth, for I never defined oikonomia as "defining deviancy down".  That is purely your judgment of what I said--a judgment that totally discredits spiritual discernment when it doesn't agree with your dogmaticism, btw.

The moral laws of the Church are not subject to negotiation.
Who's defining opposition to ABC as an unbreakable moral law of the Church?  Can you give me evidence that the Church ever did call her opposition (if I may use such a strong word in this context) to ABC an unbreakable moral law?  (Note the key word: "unbreakable".)

In this world of moral relativism, the Orthodox Church is the objective Light of the world. Priests are not supposed to adjust the Church's morality according to the whims and desires of the individual members of their parishes.
Again, I never said that.  Please read carefully what I actually write and not what you want me to say.

Instead, Priests are supposed to encourage, exhort, love, and inspire the members of their flock to live according to the Teachings of the Faith.
Of course they are!  I never denied that.  If you would actually read what I write and stop putting words into my mouth, you'd actually see that.

The burden of proof is on you my friend. I have put no words into your mouth. As I have repeatedly said, I am willing to recant my views if anyone can provide me with evidence that the 2,000 year old Teachings and Traditions of the Church include the advocacy or condoning of artificial birth control. And if the proscriptions against artificial birth control are "breakable," then please provide me with a council, canon, or ecclesiastical decree that officially declared artificial birth control as a matter left to the subjective decisions of married couples and their priests.


Selam
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 04:57:01 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #175 on: May 20, 2010, 05:27:22 AM »

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.
But when you present your interpretation of our Tradition on an Internet discussion board, your condemnation of artificial birth control comes across as an unnecessarily dogmatic opinion.  Why should your interpretation of Tradition trump the interpretation of Tradition that guides the pastoral practice of so many of our priests and bishops?  Are you somehow more qualified to interpret Tradition for us than they?

Neither my interpretation nor the interpretation of Priests and Bishops trumps the 2,000 year old interpetation of the Church. That's why I said that I will gladly stand corrected if anyone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church canons that clearly advocate or condone the use of artificial birth control. My opinion on the matter is based on objective ecclesiastical Teaching and Tradition, not on my own subjective ideas.
You're missing my point, though.  You're presenting your condemnation of artificial birth control--that is to say, your interpretation of Tradition--as though it IS the 2,000-year-old Tradition of the Church.  I don't doubt that you base your opinion solely on Holy Tradition and not on any subjective ideas, but the fact remains that your opinion is still your opinion and that others will base their opinions solely on Holy Tradition and still disagree with you.  If you believe the most logical conclusion from Holy Tradition is to condemn artificial birth control and you and your wife strive to live according to this dictate, then I commend you for your zeal to live in perfect integrity with your Christian conscience--I'm not even going to try to prove you wrong, simply because the Fathers have traditionally condemned artificial birth control.  Just recognize that when you present such strong beliefs on an Internet discussion board, you do well to respect the opinions of others by not being so dogmatic in how you state yours.  You seem to overlook the fact, which others have stated here, that priests and bishops may need to exercise pastoral discernment and apply the Church's traditional stand on ABC with less strictness than you may like.


Respectfully, I have repeatedly stated that I am open to ecclesiastical evidence that proves my position is erroneous.
What's the point in us doing so?  You're position is NOT erroneous; it's just too strict.

So you are the arbiter of what is too strict?
Why do you ask?  You seem to be setting yourself up to be the arbiter of what proper pastoral practice is regarding ABC.  Am I not permitted to say you're being too strict?

Regarding matters of morality, the Church is often if not always dogmatic.
And, more importantly, pastoral.

A) This is a subjective comment.
How so?  I think my comment no more subjective than your comment that the Church is often if not always dogmatic.

B) Your comment promotes a false dichotomy.
How so?  My use of the conjunction "AND" logically puts forth a "BOTH-AND" relationship (i.e., the Church is BOTH dogmatic AND pastoral), not an "EITHER-OR" dichotomy.

The pastoral role of the Church is never opposed to the dogmas of the Church.
I never said they were.  You're putting words into my mouth.  Please stop.

In fact, the pastoral role is to guide and assist us lay people in adhering to the dogmas of the Church, not to absolve us of our responsibility to live according to the dogmas of the Church.
But whoever elevated an opposition to artificial birth control to the level of dogma?

Just because certain Orthodox Priests, Bishops, and laymen choose to ignore the dogmatic Teachings of the Church does not mean that I shall do the same.
Please do not interpret the pastoral practice of oikonomia in such a demeaning way as to accuse those pastors who practice it of ignoring the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

I do not demean those Bishops and Priests who practice true "oikonomia." But sadly, some in the name of "oikonomia" demean themselves by elevating their own subjective ideals over and above that which the Church has historically and consistently taught.
Really?  Can you give me examples?

Quite frankly, I will never respect any ideologies or human opinions that undermine the sanctity of human Life.
And no one's asking you to do so.

Orthodoxy is not Protestantism, where individuals pick and choose the "church" that suits their own subjective belief system.
Oikonomia is not about individuals picking and choosing whatever suits their own subjective belief systems.  It's about pastors discerning specific spiritual needs and applying the discipline of the Church in ways that offer the most salvific benefit to each individual and family under their care so that, if possible, all might be saved.  I'm sorry if you can't understand this concept, but you can at least stop condemning it.


You are severely perverting the meaning of "Oikonomia." Salvation is not the result of "defining deviancy down."
Again, you're putting words into my mouth, for I never defined oikonomia as "defining deviancy down".  That is purely your judgment of what I said--a judgment that totally discredits spiritual discernment when it doesn't agree with your dogmaticism, btw.

The moral laws of the Church are not subject to negotiation.
Who's defining opposition to ABC as an unbreakable moral law of the Church?  Can you give me evidence that the Church ever did call her opposition (if I may use such a strong word in this context) to ABC an unbreakable moral law?  (Note the key word: "unbreakable".)

In this world of moral relativism, the Orthodox Church is the objective Light of the world. Priests are not supposed to adjust the Church's morality according to the whims and desires of the individual members of their parishes.
Again, I never said that.  Please read carefully what I actually write and not what you want me to say.

Instead, Priests are supposed to encourage, exhort, love, and inspire the members of their flock to live according to the Teachings of the Faith.
Of course they are!  I never denied that.  If you would actually read what I write and stop putting words into my mouth, you'd actually see that.

The burden of proof is on you my friend. I have put no words into your mouth.
Gebre, let ME be the arbiter of when you are putting words into my mouth.  I know what I write and what I intend to communicate, so it is I alone who knows when and how I'm being misunderstood.  That said, you have a nasty habit of putting words into my mouth when we debate, and this is but the latest example.

As I have repeatedly said, I am willing to recant my views if anyone can provide me with evidence that the 2,000 year old Teachings and Traditions of the Church include the advocacy or condoning of artificial birth control. And if the proscriptions against artificial birth control are "breakable," then please provide me with a council, canon, or ecclesiastical decree that officially declared artificial birth control as a matter left to the subjective decisions of married couples and their priests.
Now I do think it relevant to ask:  which Church?  Would you respect the word of Chalcedonian churches as having any authority on this matter?


As I said earlier, I will say it again.
1.  If you believe so strongly that the Church forbids the use of artificial contraceptives, and if you and your wife agree to not use them, DON'T USE THEM.  I'm not telling you to ever violate your Christian conscience on this issue.
2.  If you want to state as your belief that the Church has traditionally opposed the use of artificial contraceptives and you want to explain why you believe this without judging those who disagree, feel free to do so, for that's what this forum is for.
3.  What you're doing here to poison this debate, however, is you're attributing your belief to the Tradition of the Church without owning this belief as merely your own interpretation of that Tradition, and you're judging and demeaning those priests and bishops who permit the use of artificial contraceptives (by only specific families or by all couples in their flock, it doesn't matter) as though they were elevating their own subjective whims over the moral laws of the Church and "defining deviancy down".  It's this dogmaticism that refuses to grant any respect to those who disagree--more correctly, who grant dispensations to specific couples for pastoral reasons--that I'm criticizing, and nothing more.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,195


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #176 on: May 20, 2010, 05:42:00 AM »

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.
But when you present your interpretation of our Tradition on an Internet discussion board, your condemnation of artificial birth control comes across as an unnecessarily dogmatic opinion.  Why should your interpretation of Tradition trump the interpretation of Tradition that guides the pastoral practice of so many of our priests and bishops?  Are you somehow more qualified to interpret Tradition for us than they?

Neither my interpretation nor the interpretation of Priests and Bishops trumps the 2,000 year old interpetation of the Church. That's why I said that I will gladly stand corrected if anyone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church canons that clearly advocate or condone the use of artificial birth control. My opinion on the matter is based on objective ecclesiastical Teaching and Tradition, not on my own subjective ideas.
You're missing my point, though.  You're presenting your condemnation of artificial birth control--that is to say, your interpretation of Tradition--as though it IS the 2,000-year-old Tradition of the Church.  I don't doubt that you base your opinion solely on Holy Tradition and not on any subjective ideas, but the fact remains that your opinion is still your opinion and that others will base their opinions solely on Holy Tradition and still disagree with you.  If you believe the most logical conclusion from Holy Tradition is to condemn artificial birth control and you and your wife strive to live according to this dictate, then I commend you for your zeal to live in perfect integrity with your Christian conscience--I'm not even going to try to prove you wrong, simply because the Fathers have traditionally condemned artificial birth control.  Just recognize that when you present such strong beliefs on an Internet discussion board, you do well to respect the opinions of others by not being so dogmatic in how you state yours.  You seem to overlook the fact, which others have stated here, that priests and bishops may need to exercise pastoral discernment and apply the Church's traditional stand on ABC with less strictness than you may like.


Respectfully, I have repeatedly stated that I am open to ecclesiastical evidence that proves my position is erroneous.
What's the point in us doing so?  You're position is NOT erroneous; it's just too strict.

So you are the arbiter of what is too strict?
Why do you ask?  You seem to be setting yourself up to be the arbiter of what proper pastoral practice is regarding ABC.  Am I not permitted to say you're being too strict?

Regarding matters of morality, the Church is often if not always dogmatic.
And, more importantly, pastoral.

A) This is a subjective comment.
How so?  I think my comment no more subjective than your comment that the Church is often if not always dogmatic.

B) Your comment promotes a false dichotomy.
How so?  My use of the conjunction "AND" logically puts forth a "BOTH-AND" relationship (i.e., the Church is BOTH dogmatic AND pastoral), not an "EITHER-OR" dichotomy.

The pastoral role of the Church is never opposed to the dogmas of the Church.
I never said they were.  You're putting words into my mouth.  Please stop.

In fact, the pastoral role is to guide and assist us lay people in adhering to the dogmas of the Church, not to absolve us of our responsibility to live according to the dogmas of the Church.
But whoever elevated an opposition to artificial birth control to the level of dogma?

Just because certain Orthodox Priests, Bishops, and laymen choose to ignore the dogmatic Teachings of the Church does not mean that I shall do the same.
Please do not interpret the pastoral practice of oikonomia in such a demeaning way as to accuse those pastors who practice it of ignoring the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

I do not demean those Bishops and Priests who practice true "oikonomia." But sadly, some in the name of "oikonomia" demean themselves by elevating their own subjective ideals over and above that which the Church has historically and consistently taught.
Really?  Can you give me examples?

Quite frankly, I will never respect any ideologies or human opinions that undermine the sanctity of human Life.
And no one's asking you to do so.

Orthodoxy is not Protestantism, where individuals pick and choose the "church" that suits their own subjective belief system.
Oikonomia is not about individuals picking and choosing whatever suits their own subjective belief systems.  It's about pastors discerning specific spiritual needs and applying the discipline of the Church in ways that offer the most salvific benefit to each individual and family under their care so that, if possible, all might be saved.  I'm sorry if you can't understand this concept, but you can at least stop condemning it.


You are severely perverting the meaning of "Oikonomia." Salvation is not the result of "defining deviancy down."
Again, you're putting words into my mouth, for I never defined oikonomia as "defining deviancy down".  That is purely your judgment of what I said--a judgment that totally discredits spiritual discernment when it doesn't agree with your dogmaticism, btw.

The moral laws of the Church are not subject to negotiation.
Who's defining opposition to ABC as an unbreakable moral law of the Church?  Can you give me evidence that the Church ever did call her opposition (if I may use such a strong word in this context) to ABC an unbreakable moral law?  (Note the key word: "unbreakable".)

In this world of moral relativism, the Orthodox Church is the objective Light of the world. Priests are not supposed to adjust the Church's morality according to the whims and desires of the individual members of their parishes.
Again, I never said that.  Please read carefully what I actually write and not what you want me to say.

Instead, Priests are supposed to encourage, exhort, love, and inspire the members of their flock to live according to the Teachings of the Faith.
Of course they are!  I never denied that.  If you would actually read what I write and stop putting words into my mouth, you'd actually see that.

The burden of proof is on you my friend. I have put no words into your mouth.
Gebre, let ME be the arbiter of when you are putting words into my mouth.  I know what I write and what I intend to communicate, so it is I alone who knows when and how I'm being misunderstood.  That said, you have a nasty habit of putting words into my mouth when we debate, and this is but the latest example.

As I have repeatedly said, I am willing to recant my views if anyone can provide me with evidence that the 2,000 year old Teachings and Traditions of the Church include the advocacy or condoning of artificial birth control. And if the proscriptions against artificial birth control are "breakable," then please provide me with a council, canon, or ecclesiastical decree that officially declared artificial birth control as a matter left to the subjective decisions of married couples and their priests.
Now I do think it relevant to ask:  which Church?  Would you respect the word of Chalcedonian churches as having any authority on this matter?


As I said earlier, I will say it again.
1.  If you believe so strongly that the Church forbids the use of artificial contraceptives, and if you and your wife agree to not use them, DON'T USE THEM.  I'm not telling you to ever violate your Christian conscience on this issue.
2.  If you want to state as your belief that the Church has traditionally opposed the use of artificial contraceptives and you want to explain why you believe this without judging those who disagree, feel free to do so, for that's what this forum is for.
3.  What you're doing here to poison this debate, however, is you're attributing your belief to the Tradition of the Church without owning this belief as merely your own interpretation of that Tradition, and you're judging and demeaning those priests and bishops who permit the use of artificial contraceptives (by only specific families or by all couples in their flock, it doesn't matter) as though they were elevating their own subjective whims over the moral laws of the Church and "defining deviancy down".  It's this dogmaticism that refuses to grant any respect to those who disagree--more correctly, who grant dispensations to specific couples for pastoral reasons--that I'm criticizing, and nothing more.

I'm not buying into your relativism Peter, nor to your unfounded accusations that I put words in your mouth. Can you say "projection?"

You know where I stand. Give me ecclesiastical evidence that proves my position wrong, and I will accept it. But relativistic emotionalism won't persuade me.

Now let's not derail this thread any further by another Peter vs. Gebre "mano y mano." I thought we were past all that. Wink


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Heorhij
Merarches
*