Topic: Orthodoxy's view on contraception?

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

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?

[SolEX01]

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

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

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

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.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

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

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

but what exactly is the Orthodox Christian view on contraception?

[Irish Hermit]

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

[SolEX01]

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

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.    I know some Assemblies of God Churches start their services at 7 PM and they don't follow the Orthodox Christian Calendar.  

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

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

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.    I know some Assemblies of God Churches start their services at 7 PM and they don't follow the Orthodox Christian Calendar.  

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.

[SolEX01]

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

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.    I know some Assemblies of God Churches start their services at 7 PM and they don't follow the Orthodox Christian Calendar.  

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).   

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

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

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.    I know some Assemblies of God Churches start their services at 7 PM and they don't follow the Orthodox Christian Calendar.  

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).   

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.

[SolEX01]

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.   

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.   

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

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.   

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.   

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!

[Alveus Lacuna]

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.

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

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"?

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[Michał]

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.).

[Irish Hermit]

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)

[Alpo]

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.

[Irish Hermit]

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-

[Alpo]

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.

[Heorhij]

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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?

[Heorhij]

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.

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

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.

[Michał]

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.

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.

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

[jckstraw72]

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

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

^ 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?

[Heorhij]

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?

[Fr. George]

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)?

[ialmisry]

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

I can personally attest to that.

[Heorhij]

Hysterectomy: obvious.

Father, obvious what? No intercourse, forbidden?

[Fr. George]

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.

[HandmaidenofGod]

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!"   

[ialmisry]

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.

[Irish Hermit]

^ 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.

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[Heorhij]

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...

[ytterbiumanalyst]

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?

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

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?

[Irish Hermit]

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. 

[ytterbiumanalyst]

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.

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

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.