OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 01:12:52 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Catholic Route to Birth Control  (Read 27843 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #270 on: November 08, 2010, 11:07:48 PM »

How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?

I do not know that they did. Certainly many became Latinized as they trained in Latin seminaries, but this affected the Basilians much more than married clergy who stayed close to their roots.

OK, did the Greek Catholic Eparchies in the USA embrace Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals here or were they passed down from the Basilians in Europe who brought them to the USA via immigration?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 11:19:49 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #271 on: November 08, 2010, 11:13:58 PM »



I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?


The Divine Liturgy
Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."
The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom
Is there some Latinized or Novus Ordo service which claims that name that teaches the IC?  It's not in the Orthodox original.
Nope
Right, it's not in the Orthodox original.
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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #272 on: November 08, 2010, 11:21:40 PM »



I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?


The Divine Liturgy
Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."
The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom
Is there some Latinized or Novus Ordo service which claims that name that teaches the IC?  It's not in the Orthodox original.
Nope
Right, it's not in the Orthodox original.

If the dogma of the IC is not in the Orthodox Original of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, where else could the IC come from?  Aristotle?  Plato?   Huh
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,884


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #273 on: November 08, 2010, 11:35:46 PM »

The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom

It would be wrong to conclude the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom's use of achrantos/all-pure/immacualte implies the IC.  Especially since St. John, rare among the Fathers, believed the Theotokos sinned.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,884


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #274 on: November 08, 2010, 11:41:27 PM »

How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?

I do not know that they did. Certainly many became Latinized as they trained in Latin seminaries, but this affected the Basilians much more than married clergy who stayed close to their roots.

OK, did the Greek Catholic Eparchies in the USA embrace Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals here or were they passed down from the Basilians in Europe who brought them to the USA via immigration?

I don't think they embraced them any more than the Orthodox in the US did and I realize that is debated question.  Since Vatican II there has been a Patristic revival among Greek Catholics. 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #275 on: November 09, 2010, 12:04:56 AM »

How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?

I do not know that they did. Certainly many became Latinized as they trained in Latin seminaries, but this affected the Basilians much more than married clergy who stayed close to their roots.

OK, did the Greek Catholic Eparchies in the USA embrace Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals here or were they passed down from the Basilians in Europe who brought them to the USA via immigration?

I don't think they embraced them any more than the Orthodox in the US did and I realize that is debated question.

Fair enough; I'm satisfied with the answer because the original intent was to discern how Greek Catholics can adopt dogmas like IC and Humanae Vitae without compromising their former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   Huh  

Since Vatican II there has been a Patristic revival among Greek Catholics. 

Rediscovering their former Liturgical Deposit?  Huh
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,884


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #276 on: November 09, 2010, 12:22:19 AM »

Fair enough; I'm satisfied with the answer because the original intent was to discern how Greek Catholics can adopt dogmas like IC and Humanae Vitae without compromising their former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   Huh
 
Well for the IC, it was raising the rank of the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos to Vigil and filling in the missing hymns with ones explicitly proclaiming the IC.  Since HV is a moral dogma

Rediscovering their former Liturgical Deposit?  Huh

No, the full cycle of services was always present in the Seminaries.  I was thinking on relying on the Eastern Fathers in the teaching of theology rather than the Scholastics.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #277 on: November 09, 2010, 12:30:01 AM »

Fair enough; I'm satisfied with the answer because the original intent was to discern how Greek Catholics can adopt dogmas like IC and Humanae Vitae without compromising their former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   Huh
 
Well for the IC, it was raising the rank of the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos to Vigil and filling in the missing hymns with ones explicitly proclaiming the IC.  Since HV is a moral dogma

So Moral dogma supersedes the Greek Catholics former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   Huh

Rediscovering their former Liturgical Deposit?  Huh

No, the full cycle of services was always present in the Seminaries.  I was thinking on relying on the Eastern Fathers in the teaching of theology rather than the Scholastics.

Any Eastern Fathers in particular?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #278 on: November 09, 2010, 12:46:29 AM »

The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom

It would be wrong to conclude the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom's use of achrantos/all-pure/immacualte implies the IC.  Especially since St. John, rare among the Fathers, believed the Theotokos sinned.

On another note, here is the authentic and traditional voice of the Catholic Church and what it believed in the 13th century and through the preceding centuries...

The 13th century Thomas Aquinas:

"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. . . . If she
would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be
redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal
Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ."

Chapter CCXXXII bis. Thomas Aquinas, Compendio do Teologia, Barcelona, 1985.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #279 on: November 09, 2010, 12:50:32 AM »

With regard to the claims being given here about the Holy Fathers, with a claim that they teach the IC ....  I see that the Catholic Encyclopedia takes a more restrained approach...

"From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin
in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those
of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these
and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and
interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally
or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #280 on: November 09, 2010, 12:59:23 AM »

With regard to the claims being given here about the Holy Fathers, with a claim that they teach the IC ....  I see that the Catholic Encyclopedia takes a more restrained approach...

"From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin
in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those
of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these
and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and
interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally
or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

From the Proof from Reason section of the above link:

Quote
... the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence;God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her.


By reason, God could have given Adam and Eve the privilege of remaining in Eden after they have sinned (or absolved them of their sin while in Eden); however, God cast them out instead with the original sin which spread throughout humanity until Jesus Christ.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,884


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #281 on: November 09, 2010, 01:28:31 AM »

So Moral dogma supersedes the Greek Catholics former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   Huh
Whoops!  Lost part of my post.  I was going to say HV deals with moral theology which usually isn't dealt with liturgically.

Any Eastern Fathers in particular?

SS. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, John Climacus, Maximos the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, Simeon the New Theologian.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #282 on: November 09, 2010, 03:40:11 AM »

So Moral dogma supersedes the Greek Catholics former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   Huh
Whoops!  Lost part of my post.  I was going to say HV deals with moral theology which usually isn't dealt with liturgically.

Because Moral Theology isn't part of the former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit.

Any Eastern Fathers in particular?

SS. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, John Climacus, Maximos the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, Simeon the New Theologian.

Hopefully not reinterpreting them to sync with the current "Moral Theology" of the Vatican.   Huh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #283 on: November 09, 2010, 08:44:45 AM »

So Moral dogma supersedes the Greek Catholics former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   Huh
Whoops!  Lost part of my post.  I was going to say HV deals with moral theology which usually isn't dealt with liturgically.

Because Moral Theology isn't part of the former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit.

Any Eastern Fathers in particular?

SS. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, John Climacus, Maximos the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, Simeon the New Theologian.

Hopefully not reinterpreting them to sync with the current "Moral Theology" of the Vatican.   Huh

Well they sure as the dickens don't "sync" with artificial birth control.  In fact many of them don't "sync" with unitive sex either...

Logged

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

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



« Reply #284 on: November 09, 2010, 09:09:03 AM »

Just to make sure we have them before us, these are the documents that signalled the change (not Lambeth 1930) from the patristics that HV implicitely (but not explicitely) is based on, as far as HV is based on patristics at all.

Quote
The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?" The Vatican reply was, "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation" By the expression "impedes generation", it is obvious the Vatican meant the use of onanism (or coitus interruptus, now popularly called 'withdrawal'), condoms, etc. For otherwise the reply would be self-contradictory and make no sense.

"Qu:. An licitus sit usus matrimonii illis tantum diebus, quibus difficilior est conceptio?
[Whether it is licit to make use of marriage only on those days when it is more difficult for conception to occur?"]

"Resp.: Coniuges praedicto modo utentes inquietandos non esse, posseque confessarium sententiam de qua agitur, illis coniugibus, caute tamen, insinuare, quos alia ratione a detestabili onanismi crimine abducere frustra tentaverit" (DS 3148).
[Spouses using the aforesaid method are not to be disturbed; and a confessor may, with due caution, suggest this proposal to spouses, if his other attempts to lead them away from the detestable crime of onanism have proved fruitless.]
This decision was published in Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 13 (1881), pp. 459-460, and then in Analecta Iuris Pontificii, vol. 22 (1883), p. 249.

 "De uso exclusivo temporum agenneseos:
[Regarding the Exclusive Use of the Infertile Period]
"Qu.:An licita in se sit praxis coniugum, qui, cum ob iustas et graves causas prolem honesto modo evitare malint, ex mutuo consensu et motivo honesto a matrimonio utendo abstinent praeterquam diebus, quibus secundum quorundam recentiorum theoremata ob rationes naturales conceptio haberi non potest?
[Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage-by mutual consent and with upright motives-except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons]

"Resp.: Provisum est per Resp. S. Paenitentiariae, 16. Iun. 1880."
[Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1165258/posts#FN_6


On the use of natural law, it is used in Orthodoxy, as much as canon law is used in US law:only to illuminate the issues for resolution according to other principles (in the case of the US law, the constitution and common law;in the case of Orthodoxy, revelation).  It does not, nor should it for Orthodox, form the basis of the moral order.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #285 on: November 09, 2010, 09:11:57 AM »

So Moral dogma supersedes the Greek Catholics former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit?   Huh
Whoops!  Lost part of my post.  I was going to say HV deals with moral theology which usually isn't dealt with liturgically.

Because Moral Theology isn't part of the former "Eastern Orthodox" Liturgical Deposit.

Any Eastern Fathers in particular?

SS. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, John Climacus, Maximos the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, Simeon the New Theologian.

Hopefully not reinterpreting them to sync with the current "Moral Theology" of the Vatican.   Huh

Well they sure as the dickens don't "sync" with artificial birth control.  In fact many of them don't "sync" with unitive sex either...
hence the lack of a patristic basis for the Vatican's innovation of a distinction between ABC and NFP so called. Also the lack of a consensus on the mater at hand.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #286 on: November 09, 2010, 09:37:19 AM »

The distinction between artificial birth control and natural birth control is continence.  It is an ascetic practice that is not unfamiliar to chaste single people including religious, nuns, priests and brothers. 

The stricture not to use artificial birth control only applies to those times when one is actually engaging conjugally.  The moral teaching does NOT insist on sex on demand in a marriage, for either the man or the woman. 

The expectation with Natural Family Planning or the rhythm method is that WHEN a couple engages sexually that they are, at the time of the act, open to life....AND ....also that they use these methods of limiting the frequency of children into the family in such a way that they also remain open to life, and do not stop the process of procreation based upon material convenience and comfort.

There are pastoral exceptions to this based on all kinds of circumstances, but the fundamental difference between artificial methods and natural methods is the ascetic practice of continence and chastity in the marriage, requiring an on-going awareness of the sanctity of life and the gift of sexual pleasure and its unitive role in the love between a husband and wife, and the needs of the family in terms of material capabilities and concerns for the overall health, primarily of the woman, but also of the husband when the circumstances of his own health and well being demand.

There are many many Catholic families who are spiritually aware and mature and do not resist the call to intimacy OR the call to continence, depending on the good of the other and the family.


Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #287 on: November 09, 2010, 09:49:36 AM »

The distinction between artificial birth control and natural birth control is continence.  It is an ascetic practice that is not unfamiliar to chaste single people including religious, nuns, priests and brothers. 


I have to say that I have always found this a rather dishonest way of presenting NFP.  People offer it with the implication that people are using NFP to have sex during the time of the month when they may conceive a child.   They disguise the common usage of NFP which is to have sex in the period when the woman is infertile and so avoid conceiving a child.

As always, I point out that only an estimated 2% to 3% of Catholic marrieds use NFP so in reality any discussion of it has quite an air of unreality.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #288 on: November 09, 2010, 10:12:15 AM »

Father Ambrose has completely distorted the meaning of my post below.  Please try to read it with an open mind before tossing it out. 

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.

As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

The distinction between artificial birth control and natural birth control is continence.  It is an ascetic practice that is not unfamiliar to chaste single people including religious, nuns, priests and brothers. 

The stricture not to use artificial birth control only applies to those times when one is actually engaging conjugally.  The moral teaching does NOT insist on sex on demand in a marriage, for either the man or the woman. 

The expectation with Natural Family Planning or the rhythm method is that WHEN a couple engages sexually that they are, at the time of the act, open to life....AND ....also that they use these methods of limiting the frequency of children into the family in such a way that they also remain open to life, and do not stop the process of procreation based upon material convenience and comfort.

There are pastoral exceptions to this based on all kinds of circumstances, but the fundamental difference between artificial methods and natural methods is the ascetic practice of continence and chastity in the marriage, requiring an on-going awareness of the sanctity of life and the gift of sexual pleasure and its unitive role in the love between a husband and wife, and the needs of the family in terms of material capabilities and concerns for the overall health, primarily of the woman, but also of the husband when the circumstances of his own health and well being demand.

There are many many Catholic families who are spiritually aware and mature and do not resist the call to intimacy OR the call to continence, depending on the good of the other and the family.



Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #289 on: November 09, 2010, 11:11:38 AM »

As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

Nice try to fudge the issue but no cigar.  laugh Have you really forgotten the source?

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reported a few years back that they  estimate that only between 2% and 3% of childbearing Catholic couples use NFP.  The remaining 97% use methods of contraception forbidden by their  Church and seen as gravely sinful. 

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

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

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

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,536



« Reply #290 on: November 09, 2010, 11:16:26 AM »

"The method of contraception practiced by these Manichees whom Augustine knew is the use of the sterile period as determined by Greek medicine... In the history of the thought of theologians on contraception, it is, no doubt, piquant that the first pronouncement on contraception by the most influential theologian teaching on such matters should be such a vigorous attack on the one method of avoiding procreation accepted by twentieth-century Catholic theologians as morally lawful." - John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment By the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, (Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 120
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #291 on: November 09, 2010, 11:49:07 AM »

As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

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

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.

Not exactly something I'd want to bet the farm on.

M.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 11:54:43 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

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



« Reply #292 on: November 09, 2010, 12:30:44 PM »

Father Ambrose has completely distorted the meaning of my post below.  Please try to read it with an open mind before tossing it out.
 

We have already covered this, and on this very thread.

Quote
Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.
4) to not have children, ever. Withdrawal is as natural as rhythm, both being equally condemned by the Fathers the Vatican leans on for justifying HV after the fact.

Quote
The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.

No. A common mistake of monastics, and given the monopoly of monastics over the Vatican, a wide mistake there as well.  Were it otherwise, marital union would be just incidental, like eating meat. When St. Paul talks about abstaining for prayer, it has nothing to do with the rhythm method (which I doubt was known at the time).  The quote above from St. Augustine reflects that. To think otherwise is in the same category of nonsense as the thought that married clergy lived "like brother and sister in perfect contience."

One can argue that the rhythm method is an aspect of chastity, but you haven't done so.

Quote
As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

Can you provide better data?

The distinction between artificial birth control and natural birth control is continence.  It is an ascetic practice that is not unfamiliar to chaste single people including religious, nuns, priests and brothers.  

The stricture not to use artificial birth control only applies to those times when one is actually engaging conjugally.  The moral teaching does NOT insist on sex on demand in a marriage, for either the man or the woman.

An irrelevant detail thrown in to paint other non-abortifacient methods in a dark light. And also incorrect: the penitentiary has some discussion about a spouse's insistence, enshrined in that romantic term "marital debt" of which St. Jerome is fond. And he is clear, a husband who ejaculates in his wife's womb when it cannot conceive, is as guilty of wasting seed "the despicable crime of Onanism" as the husband who spills his seed outside his wife's womb when she can conceive, as St. Clement states
And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."

As for "MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers," well, if you hold intercourse (including marital, during fertile periods) unclean like St. Jerome, to be tolerated only for the unpleasant duty of begetting children (preferably to redeem their parents by choosing monasticism over marriage), well there is patristic basis for that.  But not for the scheme set up by Humanae Vitae.

"To outrage nature"="frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will" (HV).

NEW TOPIC: given the advances in the rhythm method, and the explicitely states beliefs of the vast majority of the Fathers who dared to express opinions on this matter, why is it not incumbant on couples to ascertain the fertile period and restrict intercourse to only that period of time.  If you want continence and "asceticism," that would give you much more than what the Vatican offers as NFP

Quote
The expectation with Natural Family Planning or the rhythm method is that WHEN a couple engages sexually that they are, at the time of the act, open to life....AND ....also that they use these methods of limiting the frequency of children into the family in such a way that they also remain open to life, and do not stop the process of procreation based upon material convenience and comfort.
odd expectation, given that the rhythm method has a high success rate in avoiding life, unlike withdrawal or condoms.

Quote
There are pastoral exceptions to this based on all kinds of circumstances,


HV and the Fathers it claims after the fact do not admit of "exceptions," pastoral or otherwise.  Pastoralism is how the shift occured in the Vatican in 1853 and was reaffirmed by the Vatican in 1880.

Quote
but the fundamental difference between artificial methods and natural methods is the ascetic practice of continence and chastity in the marriage, requiring an on-going awareness of the sanctity of life and the gift of sexual pleasure and its unitive role in the love between a husband and wife, and the needs of the family in terms of material capabilities and concerns for the overall health, primarily of the woman, but also of the husband when the circumstances of his own health and well being demand.

That difference is not founded neither on the patristics you claim nor the natural law you claim to follow.  The quote of St. Clement of Alexandria is enough to indicate that.

Quote
There are many many Catholic families who are spiritually aware and mature and do not resist the call to intimacy OR the call to continence, depending on the good of the other and the family.
Neither call is what the claimed basis of HV calls for.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:35:23 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #293 on: November 09, 2010, 12:31:44 PM »

As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

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

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.


I think that we all know by now that while you will condemn and deny this and that, you are usually quite unable or unwilling to explain what you actually mean when people ask you for your reasons.  So I imagine it is quite useless to ask you why you reject something from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and what you believe to be more reliable.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #294 on: November 09, 2010, 12:37:37 PM »

As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

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

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.


I think that we all know by now that while you will condemn and deny this and that, you are usually quite unable or unwilling to explain what you actually mean when people ask you for your reasons.  So I imagine it is quite useless to ask you why you reject something from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and what you believe to be more reliable.

"Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed": one would think that the followers of the Vatican don't use it because by the Vatican's own terms, engaging in mortal sin, they can't be "Catholics."
Logged

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

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



« Reply #295 on: November 09, 2010, 12:38:51 PM »

As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

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

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.

Not exactly something I'd want to bet the farm on.

M.

Then provide something else to bet the farm on, because the time to call has come.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #296 on: November 09, 2010, 12:40:05 PM »

As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

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

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.


I think that we all know by now that while you will condemn and deny this and that, you are usually quite unable or unwilling to explain what you actually mean when people ask you for your reasons.  So I imagine it is quite useless to ask you why you reject something from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and what you believe to be more reliable.

You have been given, by other Catholics on my discussion list, a whole laundry list of things that were wrong with that survey.  And I've see you be given the same list on other Catholic venues.

So no.  I don't intend to repeat it all here...to spend hours searching for the notes that are two and three years old.  You depend on the "sound-bite" nature of this kind of venue to press on even in the face of correction for the present moment is all that counts when it comes to feeding the minds of your immediate audience.

But you are wrong about the survey being an adequate assessment of what Catholics do or do not do, and the only real text you've provided here is your own private spin doctoring as though it is part of the survey itself.

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #297 on: November 09, 2010, 12:50:50 PM »

As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

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

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.


I think that we all know by now that while you will condemn and deny this and that, you are usually quite unable or unwilling to explain what you actually mean when people ask you for your reasons.  So I imagine it is quite useless to ask you why you reject something from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and what you believe to be more reliable.

You have been given, by other Catholics on my discussion list, a whole laundry list of things that were wrong with that survey.  And I've see you be given the same list on other Catholic venues.

........
But you are wrong about the survey being an adequate assessment of what Catholics do or do not do, and the only real text you've provided here is your own private spin doctoring as though it is part of the survey itself.




Wow, that is all a bit mendacious, Mary, since we are not looking at a survey.   So who the heck are all the Catholics who have taken me to task about this "survey"?

What I have provided, with no spin doctoring, is information from Theresa Notare.  

Her credentials are impeccable - Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and Secretariat for Pro-life Activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Those credentials mean more to me than your unsupported claims and references to a bunch of anonymous and ignorant people who think we are talking about a "survey."

« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:52:07 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #298 on: November 09, 2010, 12:57:30 PM »

As for Father's "data"...It has been pointed out to him many times that the survey that he cites has many technical difficulties with the survey population and the survey questions, so that its reliability is not good.  However he continues to cite it as a source.  Catholics don't even use it because it is so flawed.

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

I don't care who did the study.  I am very familiar with this study and its flaws.  And it does not say quite what you have it saying in addition, so with you we are are looking at two layers of error.  Your interpretive text and the short-comings of the survey itself.


I think that we all know by now that while you will condemn and deny this and that, you are usually quite unable or unwilling to explain what you actually mean when people ask you for your reasons.  So I imagine it is quite useless to ask you why you reject something from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and what you believe to be more reliable.

You have been given, by other Catholics on my discussion list, a whole laundry list of things that were wrong with that survey.  And I've see you be given the same list on other Catholic venues.

........
But you are wrong about the survey being an adequate assessment of what Catholics do or do not do, and the only real text you've provided here is your own private spin doctoring as though it is part of the survey itself.




Wow, that is all a bit mendacious, Mary, since we are not looking at a survey.   So who the heck are all the Catholics who have taken me to task about this "survey"?

What I have provided, with no spin doctoring, is information from Theresa Notare.  

Her credentials are impeccable - Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and Secretariat for Pro-life Activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Those credentials mean more to me than your unsupported claims and references to a bunch of anonymous and ignorant people who think we are talking about a "survey."



Both Stan Ziobro and Al Thrasher took you to task that I can remember.   Stan and I have actually worked at the level of the diocese in terms of promoting morality among young Catholics, and Al Thrasher is a researcher at the Library of Congress and knows a bit about the construction of research instruments.

We all three told you that it was a flawed survey.

You live in a back alley in New Zealand and frankly would not know whether Theresa Notare is impeccable or not, and none of the added text that you offer is given in the survey.  If it is then you can quote it rather than paraphrasing it to suit.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #299 on: November 09, 2010, 01:27:45 PM »

Would you deal with the earlier troubling questions?   Why did you falsely claim we were dealing with a *survey* and why did you claim that others have shown the falsity of this *survey* and what is your superior source which discredits the *survey*?  I won't be satisfied by your usual appeal to an anonynous group of friends.

It matters little that I live in New Zealand. You live in Pennsylvania.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #300 on: November 09, 2010, 01:32:21 PM »

Would you deal with the earlier troubling questions?   Why did you falsely claim we were dealing with a *survey* and why did you claim that others have shown the falsity of this *survey* and what is your superior source which discredits the *survey*?  I won't be satisfied by your usual appeal to an anonynous group of friends.

It matters little that I live in New Zealand. You live in Pennsylvania.

 laugh laugh laugh

If you don't need a nap on this on, I do.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #301 on: November 09, 2010, 01:32:54 PM »


You live in a back alley in New Zealand and frankly would not know whether Theresa Notare is impeccable or not,

 

If you were reading CAF at the time you must have forgotten that enquiries were made about her and her information at the time.  Insult me all you like but it shows you're desperate to disparage the information and you are now playing the man and not the ball.

I notice you still have not provided what you consider accurate information.  That speaks volumes.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #302 on: November 09, 2010, 01:42:10 PM »


You live in a back alley in New Zealand and frankly would not know whether Theresa Notare is impeccable or not,

 

If you were reading CAF at the time you must have forgotten that enquiries were made about her and her information at the time.  Insult me all you like but it shows you're desperate to disparage the information and you are now playing the man and not the ball.

I notice you still have not provided what you consider accurate information.  That speaks volumes.

I have never followed CAF, Father.  I have found better ways to waste my time.

This clearly is a personal bone of your own that you'll have to gnaw on by yourself for a while.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #303 on: November 09, 2010, 02:13:58 PM »

Speaking of personal.

I know a family where the couple, pre-Vatican II (in time frame, not sedvacantist) who evidently never used contraception, artificial or natural, having 7 kids. They were insistent on "Catholic education," parish membership etc. and above all the "no divorce" prohibition, so they were practising HV before HV.

The first was conceived out of wedlock, and it would have remained that way were it not that his family, in particular his sisters, nagged him into marrying the mothers for half a year after the child was born.  This was in the early 50's, not the "enlightened" age we live in now, so it was quite a statement on his part that he refused until his family broke him of it.

They proceeded to have the six others, and it is common knowledge that the mother used the children as a means to tie the father down and control him.  Talk about "unitive." I might mention that all but one of the children are married, all the marriages resulting from conceptions occuring in their house. The one who isn't married has no kids, undoubtedly practices contraception, in a longstanding cohabitation.

He retired a few years ago. A mutual friend who worked with him daily for decades, when we mentioned his family, was taken aback "He has kids? I wasn't even aware he was married."

Now being retired, and the kids all gone, he lives in the "summer" home on basically a permanent basis. For all intents and purposes they are divorced. Question is, were they ever married?

I mention this because NFP is often preached with an almost magical quality: it has a high success rate as contraception and a 0% divorce rate.  This example of a couple (only the more extreme of other examples I could cite) raises the question is "NFP" a cause, effect or auxiliary of such success rates.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 02:34:00 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #304 on: November 09, 2010, 05:17:24 PM »

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #305 on: November 09, 2010, 05:28:24 PM »

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I honestly can't imagine any of those things happening.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #306 on: November 09, 2010, 05:54:31 PM »

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
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 #307 on: November 09, 2010, 08:42:40 PM »


You live in a back alley in New Zealand and frankly would not know whether Theresa Notare is impeccable or not,

 

If you were reading CAF at the time you must have forgotten that enquiries were made about her and her information at the time.  Insult me all you like but it shows you're desperate to disparage the information and you are now playing the man and not the ball.

I notice you still have not provided what you consider accurate information.  That speaks volumes.

I have never followed CAF, Father.  I have found better ways to waste my time.

This clearly is a personal bone of your own that you'll have to gnaw on by yourself for a while.

The bone seems to be yours.  You constantly dispute this information supplied by a highly placed person with the USCCB who is employed by the bishops in NFP matters - and yet you are totally unable to offer any other reliable information (even though you claim to be in possession of it.)    The bone's in your court. 
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #308 on: November 09, 2010, 08:57:21 PM »

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I honestly can't imagine any of those things happening.
So the reunion is blocked on this issue?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #309 on: November 09, 2010, 08:58:56 PM »

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #310 on: November 09, 2010, 09:44:41 PM »

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?

Newsflash, ZENIT (Nov 9,2099):   After the 2100 union of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict-John-Paul III, an estimated 300 million Catholics are expected to switch their canonical allegiance to the Eastern Church to take advantage of the opportunity to have a second sacramental marriage and be able to receive the Eucharist.
 laugh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #311 on: November 09, 2010, 10:29:41 PM »

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
    From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?
It's not really a question of each side.  There are a fair number of Orthodox who agree with the Vatican on this, more or less, some being nearly identical.  That Orthodoxy, like the Fathers, doesn't have a overarching dogmatic stance on the matter-besides the distinction between abortifacients and non-abortifacients-and hence has no problem, as of yet, with those who are near identical in the Church and those who accept any non-abortifacient method.  That would not change if the Vatican's flock was received with the Vatican, because it is only a question of how large the percentage of that flock already practices what many in the Orthodox Church preach.  A single issue, on that point, is the question of how many of the Vatican's hard core follow it on HV.  I am not refering here to those who love this as a dogmatic difference between the Vatican and the Orthodox. I don't think that they are great in numbers, although they do set the discource in magisterial followers of the Vatican and conservative media (EWTN, Relevant Radio, etc.).  I am curious about the assenting followers, which seem to be the subject of a recent study:
Quote
Magister said that the author attributes these numbers to silence on the part of the Catholic clergy at the time, who were employing the “theory of good faith” taught by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori.

“According to this theory,” said Magister, “in the presence of a penitent who is suspected of committing contraceptive actions but appears unaware of the gravity of the sin and in practice incapable of correcting his behavior, it is best to respect his silence and take his good faith into account, absolving him without posing any further questions.”

However, Magister wrote that “a change took place in 1931” with the publication by Pius XI's encyclical "Casti Connubii."

“From then on, at the behest of the hierarchy, conjugal morality became a bigger part of preaching. And therefore the room for inculpable ignorance was reduced,” Magister noted. “A few priests wrote about this: once it has been said in public what is good and what is evil between spouses, 'good faith can no longer be admitted.'”

“But decades of silence, interpreted by most of the faithful as consent to their contraceptive practice, had left its mark,” the Vatican analyst stressed. “In their answers to the question about birth control – a dozen years after 'Casti Connubii' – some priests recognized that their preaching on this matter made no impression.”

“In the meantime, in Catholic Veneto the birth rate had fallen to levels near zero growth,” he added. “But the distance between Church teaching and the use of contraceptives continues to be perceived by most of the population as neither a sin nor a rebellion.”

“Even afterward – and this brings us up to today – the condemnation of contraceptives would be the subject of papal documents, but already at the level of the bishops it would hardly appear in preaching.”

“The clergy, for their part, would be almost completely silent on it. And would continue to be very understanding and indulgent in the confessional,” Magister concluded.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-analyst-catholic-use-of-contraception-linked-to-silence-of-clergy/
The difference between the magisterial and the assenting I would see as the former accepting HV as infallible-something many of them explicitely stating that belief-and the assenting viewing it more as ordinary magisterium of the pope, like "Providentissimus Deus" if not like "Unam Sanctam" and hence not infallible, the magisterial following any statement of the pope, whether "infallible" or not, and the assenting limiting obedience to only to teaching definitively identified as "Infallible."
Another study "The Influence of Religiosity on Contraceptive Use among Roman Catholics," by J Ohlendorf
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=richard_fehring
finds that the most religious have the highest incidence of the rhythm method, followed by sterilization (!).

Now, Truth isn't up for a vote, that's not what is at question.  The question was whether the difference between the Vatican's teaching and that of the Orthodox Church presents an obstacle for union:at the level below the hiearchy, i.e. the ones for whom this is not a theoretical issue, they already are following the Orthodox position, including those EO who are near if not identifcal with the Vatican on this issue:I never hear them elevating this as an issue like the calendar.  That leaves the Vatican and those who hold to HV, which is not the entirety of the magisterium. In this, HV doesn't differ from any other exercise of papal authority. At present, HV technically can be argued to be ordinary magisterium, and hence infallible, and hence not technically something the Orthodox would have to sign off on to satify the Vatican.  We don't see it as that simple, but we wouldn't be the ones to raise the issue out of any other issue we had with papal claims. That would be up to the Vatican and those bishops who adhere to HV, because they would be the only ones insisting on it at any rate. The quadry of whether admitting it as ordinary magisterium as the Vatican defines that and leaving it at that, or raising it to the level of domga and "infallibility," would be theirs to deal with.

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?
I don't think it would be each side: many of the Vatican's flock already practice what the Orthodox preach. They would continue to do so, especially given a clearance to do so. Some of those EO who see HV as an Orthodox document might try to raise it onto the dogmatic level and join forces with the Vatican to pull the rest of the Orthodox in that direction, but I don't even see that happening.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 10:34:08 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

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



« Reply #312 on: November 09, 2010, 10:37:02 PM »

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?

Newsflash, ZENIT (Nov 9,2099):   After the 2100 union of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict-John-Paul III, an estimated 300 million Catholics are expected to switch their canonical allegiance to the Eastern Church to take advantage of the opportunity to have a second sacramental marriage and be able to receive the Eucharist.
 laugh

Tongue in cheek, Father. But it makes me think, I don't have a real sense of what the "sui juris" flocks hold on HV.  I know many who outright do not accept the IC, Vatican I etc.: is HV another difference they see between the Vatican and themselves?
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #313 on: November 09, 2010, 11:02:18 PM »

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
    From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?
It's not really a question of each side.  There are a fair number of Orthodox who agree with the Vatican on this, more or less, some being nearly identical.  That Orthodoxy, like the Fathers, doesn't have a overarching dogmatic stance on the matter-besides the distinction between abortifacients and non-abortifacients-and hence has no problem, as of yet, with those who are near identical in the Church and those who accept any non-abortifacient method.  That would not change if the Vatican's flock was received with the Vatican, because it is only a question of how large the percentage of that flock already practices what many in the Orthodox Church preach.  A single issue, on that point, is the question of how many of the Vatican's hard core follow it on HV.  I am not refering here to those who love this as a dogmatic difference between the Vatican and the Orthodox. I don't think that they are great in numbers, although they do set the discource in magisterial followers of the Vatican and conservative media (EWTN, Relevant Radio, etc.).  I am curious about the assenting followers, which seem to be the subject of a recent study:
Quote
Magister said that the author attributes these numbers to silence on the part of the Catholic clergy at the time, who were employing the “theory of good faith” taught by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori.

“According to this theory,” said Magister, “in the presence of a penitent who is suspected of committing contraceptive actions but appears unaware of the gravity of the sin and in practice incapable of correcting his behavior, it is best to respect his silence and take his good faith into account, absolving him without posing any further questions.”

However, Magister wrote that “a change took place in 1931” with the publication by Pius XI's encyclical "Casti Connubii."

“From then on, at the behest of the hierarchy, conjugal morality became a bigger part of preaching. And therefore the room for inculpable ignorance was reduced,” Magister noted. “A few priests wrote about this: once it has been said in public what is good and what is evil between spouses, 'good faith can no longer be admitted.'”

“But decades of silence, interpreted by most of the faithful as consent to their contraceptive practice, had left its mark,” the Vatican analyst stressed. “In their answers to the question about birth control – a dozen years after 'Casti Connubii' – some priests recognized that their preaching on this matter made no impression.”

“In the meantime, in Catholic Veneto the birth rate had fallen to levels near zero growth,” he added. “But the distance between Church teaching and the use of contraceptives continues to be perceived by most of the population as neither a sin nor a rebellion.”

“Even afterward – and this brings us up to today – the condemnation of contraceptives would be the subject of papal documents, but already at the level of the bishops it would hardly appear in preaching.”

“The clergy, for their part, would be almost completely silent on it. And would continue to be very understanding and indulgent in the confessional,” Magister concluded.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-analyst-catholic-use-of-contraception-linked-to-silence-of-clergy/
The difference between the magisterial and the assenting I would see as the former accepting HV as infallible-something many of them explicitely stating that belief-and the assenting viewing it more as ordinary magisterium of the pope, like "Providentissimus Deus" if not like "Unam Sanctam" and hence not infallible, the magisterial following any statement of the pope, whether "infallible" or not, and the assenting limiting obedience to only to teaching definitively identified as "Infallible."
Another study "The Influence of Religiosity on Contraceptive Use among Roman Catholics," by J Ohlendorf
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=richard_fehring
finds that the most religious have the highest incidence of the rhythm method, followed by sterilization (!).

Now, Truth isn't up for a vote, that's not what is at question.  The question was whether the difference between the Vatican's teaching and that of the Orthodox Church presents an obstacle for union:at the level below the hiearchy, i.e. the ones for whom this is not a theoretical issue, they already are following the Orthodox position, including those EO who are near if not identifcal with the Vatican on this issue:I never hear them elevating this as an issue like the calendar.  That leaves the Vatican and those who hold to HV, which is not the entirety of the magisterium. In this, HV doesn't differ from any other exercise of papal authority. At present, HV technically can be argued to be ordinary magisterium, and hence infallible, and hence not technically something the Orthodox would have to sign off on to satify the Vatican.  We don't see it as that simple, but we wouldn't be the ones to raise the issue out of any other issue we had with papal claims. That would be up to the Vatican and those bishops who adhere to HV, because they would be the only ones insisting on it at any rate. The quadry of whether admitting it as ordinary magisterium as the Vatican defines that and leaving it at that, or raising it to the level of domga and "infallibility," would be theirs to deal with.

Married Catholics use natural methods of birth control in order 1) to conceive a child, 2) to not conceive a child for right reasons, 3) to space children.

The difference between artificial and natural means is the ascetic practice of continence in the marriage.
     From what has been posted here, it looks like there is a serious disagreement between RC and EO on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage. The official RC position is that it is always gravely wrong, whereas the E. Orthodox would allow it under certain (possibly limited) circumstances. Now there has been discussion or "dialog"  about "reunion" or restoring full communion between the two Churches.
     Do you think that this difference on the morality of the use of artificial birth control in marriage would present a major obstacle and problem for restoring communion between the two Churches? In the event of any reunion how would it be resolved?
I can think of three possiblities:
1. Live and let live. Each side overlooks the differences in this area, while holding to its own view for its Church.
2. The RC concedes and admits the EO position.
3. The EO concedes and admits the RC position.
I don't actually see this as a realistic obstacle in reality and practice to any union of the Vatican to the Orthodox Church.

One side note on the rosey picture of NFP family life: it resembles Christian pacificism and Christian abolition to the death penalty, reflecting Chrsitian values and yet bottom line the Church glorifies soldier saints and has not required abolition of capital punishment.
Do you think then that it would be live and let live, with each side holding to its position?
I don't think it would be each side: many of the Vatican's flock already practice what the Orthodox preach. They would continue to do so, especially given a clearance to do so. Some of those EO who see HV as an Orthodox document might try to raise it onto the dogmatic level and join forces with the Vatican to pull the rest of the Orthodox in that direction, but I don't even see that happening.
Interesting comments.
Yes, it is true that most R. Catholics do not follow HV. In fact, according to a recent poll taken of graduating seniors at a local R Catholic college, 90% said that they thought it was all right for a married couple to use ABC. However, the official RCC position is that it is gravely wrong. So the question, mostly for the Catholics here, but also for everyone else, would be what would happen to this teaching if full intercommunion with the EOC were effected? My guess is that officially  the RCC would not see this as an obstacle to intercommunion, but that there would be some objections raised by ultra-conservatives in the RC Church.   
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #314 on: November 10, 2010, 01:21:36 PM »

I was rereading HV, and this struck my eye:
Quote
Interpreting the Moral Law
This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.

That seems to be the problem with much of the Vatican's moral (and even theological) teaching: in Orthodoxy, the principles of the moral teaching on marriage are based on divine Revelation, and illuminated and enriched by natural law. This confusion is continued in HV:
Quote
No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (See Pius IX, encyc. letter Oui pluribus: Pii IX P.M. Acta, 1, pp. 9-10; St. Pius X encyc. letter Singulari quadam: AAS 4 (1912), 658; Pius XI, encyc.letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 579-581; Pius XII, address Magnificate Dominum to the episcopate of the Catholic World: AAS 46 (1954), 671-672; John XXIII, encyc. letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 457) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (See Mt 28. 18-19) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (See Mt 7. 21)

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Leo XIII, encyc.letter Arcanum: Acta Leonis XIII, 2 (1880), 26-29; Pius XI, encyc.letter Divini illius Magistri: AAS 22 (1930), 58-61; encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 545-546; Pius XII, Address to Italian Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi di Pio XII, VI, 191-192; to Italian Association of Catholic Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 835-854; to the association known as the Family Campaign, and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 857-859; to 7th congress of International Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395]; John XXIII, encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 446-447 [TPS VII, 330-331]; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos. 47-52: AAS 58 (1966), 1067-1074 [TPS XI, 289-295]; Code of Canon Law, canons 1067, 1068 §1, canon 1076, §§1-2.)

None of those "predecessors" predate Vatican I.

Mt. 7:21 "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." Natural law, might also declare the will of God, but He has spoken more clearly in revelation: why would one want to read tea leaves when you can read a straight forward letter? Orthodoxy looks to the telos, the End, for moral theology and order nature towards that goal, not the other way around.

The only statement predating Vatican I HV cites here comes from the catechism of Trent
Quote
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THIS SACRAMENT
As it is the duty of the pastor to seek the holiness and perfection of the faithful, his earnest desires must be in full accordance with those expressed by the Apostle when writing to the Corinthians: I would that all men were even as myself,1 that is, that all should embrace the virtue of continence. No greater happiness can befall the faithful in this life than to have their souls distracted by no worldly cares, the unruly desires of the flesh tranquilized and restrained, and the mind fixed on the practice of piety and the contemplation of heavenly things.
But as, according to the same Apostle, every one has his proper gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that;2 and as marriage is gifted with great and divine blessings, so much so as truly and properly to hold a place among the other Sacraments of the Catholic Church, and as its celebration was honored by the presence of our Lord Himself,3 it is clear that this subject should be explained, particularly since we find that St. Paul and the Prince of the Apostles have in many places minutely described to us not only the dignity but also the duties of the married state. Filled with the Spirit of God (these Apostles) well understood the numerous and important advantages which must flow to Christian society from a knowledge, and an inviolable observance by the faithful of the sanctity of marriage; while they saw that from ignorance or disregard of (its holiness), many and serious calamities and losses must be brought upon the Church.

Nature and Meaning of Marriage
The nature and meaning of marriage are, therefore, to be first explained. Vice not infrequently assumes the semblance of virtue, and hence care must be taken that the faithful be not deceived by a false appearance of marriage, and thus stain their souls with turpitude and wicked lusts. To explain this subject, let us begin with the meaning of the word itself.

NAMES OF THIS SACRAMENT
The word matrimony is derived from the fact that the principal object which a female should propose to herself in marriage is to become a mother; or from the fact that to a mother it belongs to conceive, bring forth and train her offspring.*
It is also called wedlock (conjugium)* from joining together, because a lawful wife is united to her husband, as it were, by a common yoke.
It is called nuptials,* because, as St. Ambrose observes, the bride veiled her face through modesty - a custom which would also seem to imply that she was to be subject and obedient to her husband.4

DEFINITION OF MATRIMONY
Matrimony, according to the general opinion of theologians, is defined: The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.
In order that the different parts of this definition may be better understood, it should be taught that, although a perfect marriage has all the following conditions, - namely, internal consent, external compact expressed by words, the obligation and tie which arise from the contract, and the marriage debt by which it is consummated; yet the obligation and tie expressed by the word union alone have the force and nature of marriage.
The special character of this union is marked by the word conjugal. This word is added because other contracts, by which men and women bind themselves to help each other in consideration of money received or other reason, differ essentially from matrimony.
Next follow the words between qualified persons; for person excluded by law cannot contract marriage, and if they do their marriage is invalid. Persons, for instance, within the fourth degree of kindred, a boy before his fourteenth year, and a female before her twelfth, the ages established by law,* cannot contract marriage.
The words, which obliges them to live together throughout life, express the indissolubility of the tie which binds husband and wife.*

ESSENCE AND CAUSE OF MARRIAGE
Hence it is evident that marriage consists in the tie spoken of above. Some eminent theologians, it is true, say that it consists in the consent, as when they define it: The consent of the man and woman. But we are to understand them to mean that the consent is the efficient cause of marriage, which is the doctrine of the Fathers of the Council of Florence;5 because, without the consent and contract, the obligation and tie cannot possibly exist.

The Kind of Consent Required in Matrimony
It is most necessary that the consent be expressed in words denoting present time.

MUTUAL
Marriage is not a mere donation, but a mutual agreement; and therefore the consent of one of the parties is insufficient for marriage, while the mutual consent of both is essential.

EXTERNAL
To declare this consent words are obviously necessary. If the internal consent alone, without any external indication, were sufficient for marriage, it would then seem to follow as a necessary consequence, that were two persons, living in the most separate and distant countries, to consent to marry, they would contract a true and indissoluble marriage, even before they had mutually signified to each other their consent by letter or messenger - a consequence as repugnant to reason as it is opposed to the decrees and established usage of holy Church.

PRESENT
Rightly was it said that the consent must be expressed in words which have reference to present time; for words which signify a future time, promise, but do not actually unite in marriage. Besides, it is evident that what is to be done has no present existence, and what has no present existence can have little or no firmness or stability. Hence a man who has only promised to marry a certain woman acquires by the promise no marriage rights, since his promise has not yet been fulfilled. Such promises are, it is true, obligatory, and their violation involves the offending party in a breach of faith. But he who has once entered into the matrimonial alliance, regret it as he afterwards may, cannot possibly change, or invalidate, or undo what has been done.
As, then, the marriage contract is not a mere promise, but a transfer of right, by which the man actually yields the dominion of his body to the woman, the woman the dominion of her body to the man, it must therefore be made in words which designate the present time, the force of which words abides with undiminished efficacy from the moment of their utterance, and binds the husband and wife by a tie that cannot be broken.
Instead of words, however, it may be sufficient for marriage to substitute a nod or other unequivocal sign of internal consent. Even silence, when the result of female modesty, may be sufficient, provided the parents answer for their daughter.

The Essence of Marriage Constituted by the Consent
Hence pastors should teach the faithful that the nature and force of marriage consists in the tie and obligation; and that, without consummation, the consent of the parties, expressed in the manner already explained, is sufficient to constitute a true marriage. It is certain that our first parents before their fall, when, according to the holy Fathers, no consummation took place, were really united in marriage.6 Hence the Fathers say that marriage consists not in its use, but in the consent. This doctrine is repeated by St. Ambrose in his book On Virgins.7 *

Twofold Consideration of Marriage
When these matters have been explained, it should be taught that matrimony is to be considered from two points of view either as a natural union, since it was not invented by man but instituted by nature; or as a Sacrament, the efficacy of which transcends the order of nature.

Marriage as a Natural Contract
As grace perfects nature, and as that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual,8 the order of our matter requires that we first treat of Matrimony as a natural contract, imposing natural duties, and next consider what pertains to it as a Sacrament.


INSTITUTED BY GOD
The faithful, therefore, are to be taught in the first place that marriage was instituted by God. We read in Genesis that God created them male and female, and blessed them, saying: "Increase and multiply"; and also: "It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself." And a little further on: But for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam; and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built a rib which he took from Adam into a woman, and brought her to Adam; and Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man: wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be two in one flesh."9 These words, according to the authority of our Lord Himself, as we read in St. Matthew, prove the divine institution of Matrimony.10 *

MARRIAGE IS INDISSOLUBLE BY DIVINE LAW
Not only did God institute marriage; He also, as the Council of Trent declares, rendered it perpetual and indissoluble.11 What God has joined together, says our Lord, let not man separate.12
Although it belongs to marriage as a natural contract to be indissoluble, yet its indissolubility arises principally from its nature as a Sacrament, as it is the sacramental character that, in all its natural relations, elevates marriage to the highest perfection. In any event, dissolubility is at once opposed to the proper education of children, and to the other advantages of marriage.

MARRIAGE NOT OBLIGATORY ON ALL
The words increase and multiply,13 which were uttered by the Lord, do not impose on every individual an obligation to marry, but only declare the purpose of the institution of marriage. Now that the human race is widely diffused, not only is there no law rendering marriage obligatory, but, on the contrary, virginity is highly exalted and strongly recommended in Scripture as superior to marriage, and as a state of greater perfection and holiness. For our Lord and Saviour taught as follows: He that can take it, let him take it;14 and the Apostle says: Concerning virgins I have no commandment from the Lord; but I give counsel as having obtained mercy from the Lord to be faithful.15

THE MOTIVES AND ENDS OF MARRIAGE
We have now to explain why man and woman should be joined in marriage. First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age.
A second reason for marriage is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God. That such was the principal object of the holy Patriarchs when they married is clear from Scripture. Hence the Angel, when informing Tobias of the means of repelling the violent assaults of the evil demon, says: I will show thee who they are over whom the devil can prevail; for they who in such manner receive matrimony as to shut out God from themselves and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule which have not understanding, over them the devil has power. He then adds: Thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children.16 It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime - nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.
Deinde subiecit: „Accipics virginem cum timore Domini, amore filiorum magis, quam libidinc ductus, ut in semine Abrahae benedictioncm in filiis consequaris." Atque una eliam haec causa fuit, cur Deus ab initio matrimonium constituerit. Quare fit, ut illorum sit scelus gravissimum, qui matrimonio iuncti medicamcntis vel conccptum impediunt, vel partum abigunt; haec enim homicidarum impia conspiratio existimanda est.
A third reason has been added, as a consequence of the fall of our first parents. On account of the loss of original innocence the passions began to rise in rebellion against right reason; and man, conscious of his own frailty and unwilling to fight the battles of the flesh, is supplied by marriage with an antidote by which to avoid sins of lust. For fear of fornication, says the Apostle, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband;17 and a little after, having recommended to married persons a temporary abstinence from the marriage debt, to give themselves to prayer, he adds: Return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
These are ends, some one of which, those who desire to contract marriage piously and religiously, as becomes the children of the Saints, should propose to themselves. If to these we add other causes which induce to contract marriage, and, in choosing a wife, to prefer one person to another, such as the desire of leaving an heir, wealth, beauty, illustrious descent, congeniality of disposition - such motives, because not inconsistent with the holiness of marriage, are not to be condemned. We do not find that the Sacred Scriptures condemn the Patriarch Jacob for having chosen Rachel for her beauty, in preference to Lia.18 *
So much should be explained regarding Matrimony as a natural contract.

Marriage Considered as a Sacrament
It will now be necessary to explain that Matrimony is far superior in its sacramental aspect and aims at any incomparably higher end. For as marriage, as a natural union, was instituted from the beginning to propagate the human race; so was the sacramental dignity subsequently conferred upon it in order that a people might be begotten and brought up for the service and worship of the true God and of Christ our Saviour.
Thus when Christ our Lord wished to give a sign of the intimate union that exists between Him and His Church and of His immense love for us, He chose especially the sacred union of man and wife. That this sign was a most appropriate one will readily appear from the fact that of all human relations there is none that binds so closely as the marriage-tie, and from the fact that husband and wife are bound to one another by the bonds of the greatest affection and love. Hence it is that Holy Writ so frequently represents to us the divine union of Christ and the Church under the figure of marriage.

MARRIAGE IS A SACRAMENT
That Matrimony is a Sacrament the Church, following the authority of the Apostles, has always held to be certain and incontestable. In his Epistle to the Ephesians he writes: Men should love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall adhere to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.19 Now his expression, this is a great sacrament, undoubtedly refers to Matrimony, and must be taken to mean that the union of man and wife, which has God for its Author, is a Sacrament, that is, a sacred sign of that most holy union that binds Christ our Lord to His Church.
That this is the true and proper meaning of the Apostle's words is shown by the ancient holy Fathers who have interpreted them, and by the explanation furnished by the Council of Trent.20 It is indubitable, therefore, that the Apostle compares the husband to Christ, and the wife to the Church; that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church;21 and that for this very reason the husband should love his wife and the wife love and respect her husband. For Christ loved his church, and gave himself for her;22 while as the same Apostle teaches, the church is subject to Christ.23
That grace is also signified and conferred by this Sacrament, which are two properties that constitute the principal characteristics of each Sacrament, is declared by the Council as follows: By his passion Christ, the Author and Perfecter of the venerable Sacraments, merited for us the grace that perfects the natural love (of husband and wife), confirms their indissoluble union, and sanctifies them.24 It should, therefore, be shown that by the grace of this Sacrament husband and wife are joined in the bonds of mutual love, cherish affection one towards the other, avoid illicit attachments and passions, and so keep their marriage honourable in all things, . . . and their bed undefiled.25 *

Marriage before Christ
IT WAS NOT A SACRAMENT
How much the Sacrament of Matrimony is superior to the marriages made both previous to and under the (Mosaic) Law may be judged from the fact that though the Gentiles themselves were convinced there was something divine in marriage, and for that reason regarded promiscuous intercourse as contrary to the law of nature, while they also considered fornication, adultery and other kinds of impurity to be punishable offences; yet their marriages never had any sacramental value.
Among the Jews the laws of marriage were observed far more religiously, and it cannot be doubted that their unions were endowed with more holiness. As they had received from God the promise that in the seed of Abraham all nations should be blessed,26 it was justly considered by them to be a very pious duty to bring forth children, and thus contribute to the propagation of the chosen people from whom Christ the Lord and Saviour was to derive His birth in His human nature. Still their unions also fell short of the real nature of a Sacrament.

BEFORE CHRIST MARRIAGE HAD FALLEN FROM ITS PRIMITIVE UNITY AND INDISSOLUBILITY
It should be added that if we consider the law of nature after the fall and the Law of Moses we shall easily see that marriage had fallen from its original honor and purity. Thus under the law of nature we read of many of the ancient Patriarchs that they had several wives at the same time; while under the Law of Moses it was permissible, should cause exist, to repudiate one's wife by giving her a bill of divorce. Both these (concessions) have been suppressed by the law of the Gospel,28 and marriage has been restored to its original state.

Christ Restored to Marriage its Primitive Qualities
UNITY OF MARRIAGE
Though some of the ancient Patriarchs are not to be blamed for having married several wives, since they did not act thus without divine dispensation, yet Christ our Lord has clearly shown that polygamy is not in keeping with the nature of Matrimony. These are His words: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh; and He adds: wherefore they are no more two but one flesh.29 In these words He makes it clear that God instituted marriage to be the union of two, and only two persons. The same truth He has taught very distinctly in another passage, wherein He says: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.30 For if it were lawful for a man to have several wives, there is no reason why he who takes to himself a second wife, along with the wife he already has, should be regarded as more guilty of adultery than if he had dismissed his first wife and taken a second.
Hence it is that when an infidel who, following the customs of his country has married several wives, happens to be converted to the true religion, the Church orders him to dismiss all but the first, and regard her alone as his true and lawful wife.*

INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE
The self-same testimony of Christ our Lord easily proves that the marriage-tie cannot be broken by any sort of divorce. For if by a bill of divorce a woman were freed from the law that binds her to her husband, she might marry another husband without being in the least guilty of adultery. Yet our Lord says clearly: Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery.31 Hence it is plain that the bond of marriage can be dissolved by death alone, as is confirmed by the Apostle when he says: A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die she is at liberty; let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord;32 and again: To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.33 To the wife, then, who for a just cause has left her husband, the Apostle offers this alternative: Let her either remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. Nor does holy Church permit husband and wife to separate without weighty reasons.

ADVANTAGES OF INDISSOLUBILITY
Lest, however, the law of Matrimony should seem too severe on account of its absolute indissolubility, the advantages of this indissolubility should be pointed out.
The first (beneficial consequence) is that men are given to understand that in entering Matrimony virtue and congeniality of disposition are to be preferred to wealth or beauty - a circumstance that cannot but prove of the very highest advantage to the interests of society at large.
In the second place, if marriage could be dissolved by divorce, married persons would hardly ever be without causes of disunion, which would be daily supplied by the old enemy of peace and purity; while, on the contrary, now that the faithful must remember that even though separated as to bed and board, they remain none the less bound by the bond of marriage with no hope of marrying another, they are by this very fact rendered less prone to strife and discord. And even if it sometimes happens that husband and wife become separated, and are unable to bear the want of their partnership any longer, they are easily reconciled by friends and return to their common life.
The pastor should not here omit the salutary admonition of St. Augustine who, to convince the faithful that they should not consider it a hardship to receive back the wife they have put away for adultery, provided she repents of her crime, observes: Why should not the Christian husband receive back his wife when the Church receives her? And why should not the wife pardon her adulterous but penitent husband when Christ has already pardoned him?34 True it is that Scripture calls him foolish who keepeth an adulteress;35 but the meaning refers to her who refuses to repent of her crime and quit the disgraceful course she has entered on.
From all this it will be clear that Christian marriage is far superior in dignity and perfection to that of Gentiles and Jews.

The Three Blessings of Marriage
The faithful should also be shown that there are three blessings of marriage: children, fidelity and the Sacrament. These are blessings which to some degree compensate for the inconveniences referred to by the Apostle in the words: Such shall have tribulation of the flesh,36 and they lead to this other result that sexual intercourse, which is sinful outside of marriage, is rendered right and honorable.

OFFSPRING
The first blessing, then, is a family, that is to say, children born of a true and lawful wife. So highly did the Apostle esteem this blessing that he says: The woman shall be saved by bearing children.37 These words are to be understood not only of bearing children, but also of bringing them up and training them to the practice of piety; for the Apostle immediately subjoins: If she continue in faith. Scripture says: Hast thou children? Instruct them and bow down their necks from childhood.38 The same is taught by the Apostle; while Tobias, Job and other holy Patriarchs in Sacred Scripture furnish us with beautiful examples of such training. The duties of both parents and children will, however, be set forth in detail when we come to speak of the fourth Commandment.

FIDELITY
The second advantage of marriage is faith, not indeed that virtue which we receive in Baptism; but the fidelity which binds wife to husband and husband to wife in such a way that they mutually deliver to each other power over their bodies, promising at the same time never to violate the holy bond of Matrimony.39 This is easily inferred from the words pronounced by Adam when taking Eve as his wife, and which were afterwards confirmed by Christ our Lord in the Gospel: Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh.40 It is also inferred from the words of the Apostle: The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and in like manner, the husband has not power of his own body but the wife.41 Justly, then, did the Lord in the Old Law ordain the most severe penalties against adulterers who violated this conjugal fidelity.42
Matrimonial fidelity also demands that they love one another with a special, holy and pure love; not as adulterers love one another but as Christ loves His Church. This is the rule laid down by the Apostle when he says: Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the church.43 And surely (Christ's) love for His Church was immense; it was a love inspired not by His own advantage, but only by the advantage of His spouse.

SACRAMENT
The third advantage is called the Sacrament, that is to say, the indissoluble bond of marriage. As the Apostle has it: The Lord commanded that the wife depart not from the husband, and if she depart that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife.44 And truly, if marriage as a Sacrament represents the union of Christ with His Church, it also necessarily follows that just as Christ never separates Himself from His Church, so in like manner the wife can never be separated from her husband in so far as regards the marriage-tie.*

The Duties of Married People
The more easily to preserve the holy state (of marriage) from dissensions, the duties of husband and wife as inculcated by St. Paul and by the Prince of the Apostles must be explained.

DUTIES OF A HUSBAND
It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honorably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion.45 Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers., that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.
The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.
He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties.

DUTIES OF A WIFE
On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.46
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent.
Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.

The Law of the Church on Marriage
THE RITE TO BE OBSERVED
Having explained these matters, pastors should next teach what rites are to be observed in contracting marriage. There is no need, however, that we dwell on these questions here. The Council of Trent has laid down fully and accurately what must be chiefly observed; and this decree will not be unknown to pastors. It will suffice, then, to admonish them to study to make themselves acquainted, from the doctrine of the Council, with what regards this subject, and to explain it carefully to the faithful.47
But above all, lest young persons, whose period of life is marked by extreme indiscretion, should be deceived by a merely nominal marriage and foolishly rush into sinful love-unions, the pastor cannot too frequently remind them that there can be no true and valid marriage unless it be contracted in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest commissioned by him, or by the Ordinary, and that of a certain number of witnesses.

THE IMPEDIMENTS OF MARRIAGE
The impediments of marriage are also to be explained, a subject so minutely and accurately treated by many grave and learned writers on the virtues and vices as to render it an easy task to draw upon their labors, particularly as the pastor has occasion to have such works continually in his hands. The instructions, therefore, which such books contain, and also the decrees of the Council with regard to the impediments arising from spiritual relationship, from public honesty, and from fornication, the pastor should peruse with attention and expound with care.48 *

The Recipient of Matrimony
DISPOSITIONS WITH WHICH THE SACRAMENT IS TO BE APPROACHED
From the above may he learned the dispositions with which the faithful should contract matrimony. They should consider that they are about to enter upon a work that is not human but divine. The example of the Fathers of the Old Law, who esteemed marriage as a most holy and religious rite, although it had not then been raised to the dignity of a Sacrament, shows the singular purity of soul and piety (with which Christians should approach marriage).*

CONSENT OF PARENTS
Among other things, children should be exhorted earnestly that they owe as a tribute of respect to their parents, or to those under whose guardianship and authority they are placed, not to contract marriage without their knowledge, still less in defiance of their express wishes. It should be observed that in the Old Law children were always given in marriage by their fathers; and that the will of the parent is always to have very great influence on the choice of the child, is clear from these words of the Apostle: He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better.49

THE USE OF MARRIAGE
Finally, the use of marriage is a subject which pastors should so treat as to avoid any expression that may be unfit to meet the ears of the faithful, that may be calculated to offend the piety of some, or excite the laughter of others. The words of the Lord are chaste words;50 and the teacher of a Christian people should make use of the same kind of language, one that is characterized by singular gravity and purity of soul. Two lessons of instruction to the faithful are, then, to be specially insisted upon.
The first is that marriage is not to be used for purposes of lust or sensuality, but that its use is to be restrained within those limits which, as we have already shown, have been fixed by the Lord. It should be remembered that the Apostle admonishes: They that have wives, let them be as though they had them not,51 and that St. Jerome says: The love which a wise man cherishes towards his wife is the result of judgment, not the impulse of passion; he governs the impetuosity of desire, and is not hurried into indulgence. There is nothing more shameful than that a husband should love his wife as an adulteress.52
But as every blessing is to be obtained from God by holy prayer, the faithful are also to be taught sometimes to abstain from the marriage debt, in order to devote themselves to prayer. Let the faithful understand that (this religious continence), according to the proper and holy injunction of our predecessors, is particularly to be observed for at least three days before Communion, and oftener during the solemn fast of Lent.
Thus will they find the blessings of marriage to be daily increased by an abundance of divine grace; and living in the pursuit of piety, they will not only spend this life in peace and tranquillity, but will also repose in the true and firm hope, which confoundeth not,53 of arriving, through the divine goodness, at the possession of that life which is eternal.*
Very little in the way of ABC/NFP so called.  On the Commandment against Murder, which is refered above, only says this
Quote
There are, however, two cases in which guilt attaches (to accidental death). The first case is when death results from an unlawful act; when, for instance, a person kicks or strikes a woman in a state of pregnancy, and abortion follows. The consequence, it is true, may not have been intended, but this does not exculpate the offender, because the act of striking a pregnant woman is in itself unlawful.
to this I'll add from Trent
Quote
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT
"Thou shalt not commit adultery"
THE POSITION OF THIS COMMANDMENT IN THE DECALOGUE IS MOST SUITABLE
The bond between man and wife is one of the closest, and nothing can be more gratifying to both than to know that they are objects of mutual and special affection. On the other hand, nothing inflicts deeper anguish than to feel that the legitimate love which one owes the other has been transferred elsewhere. Rightly, then, and in its natural order, is the Commandment which protects human life against the hand of the murderer, followed by that which forbids adultery and which aims to prevent anyone from injuring or destroying by such a crime the holy and honorable union of marriage - a union which is generally the source of ardent affection and love.

IMPORTANCE OF CAREFUL INSTRUCTION ON THIS COMMANDMENT
In the explanation of this Commandment, however, the pastor has need of great caution and prudence, and should treat with great delicacy a subject which requires brevity rather than copiousness of exposition. For it is to be feared that if he explained in too great detail or at length the ways in which this Commandment is violated, he might unintentionally speak of subjects which, instead of extinguishing, usually serve rather to inflame corrupt passion.
As, however, the precept contains many things which cannot be passed over in silence, the pastor should explain them in their proper order and place.*

TWO PARTS OF THIS COMMANDMENT
This Commandment, then, resolves itself into two heads; the one expressed, which prohibits adultery; the other implied, which inculcates purity of mind and body.
What this Commandment Prohibits

ADULTERY FORBIDDEN
To begin with the prohibitory part (of the Commandment), adultery is the defilement of the marriage bed, whether it be one's own or another's. If a married man have intercourse with an unmarried woman, he violates the integrity of his marriage bed; and if an unmarried man have intercourse with a married woman, he defiles the sanctity of the marriage bed of another.

OTHER SINS AGAINST CHASTITY ARE FORBIDDEN
But that every species of immodesty and impurity are included in this prohibition of adultery, is proved by the testimonies of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose;2 and that such is the meaning of the Commandment is borne out by the Old, as well as the New Testament. In the writings of Moses, besides adultery, other sins against chastity are said to have been punished. Thus the book of Genesis records the judgment of Judah against his daughter-in-law.
Interesting, nothing on Onan.
Quote
3 In Deuteronomy is found the excellent law of Moses, that there should be no harlot amongst the daughters of Israel.4 Take heed to keep thyself, my son, from all fornication,5 is the exhortation of Tobias to his son; and in Ecclesiasticus we read: Be ashamed of looking upon a harlot.6
In the Gospel, too, Christ the Lord says: From the heart come forth adulteries and fornications, which defile a man.7 The Apostle Paul expresses his detestation of this crime frequently, and in the strongest terms: This is the will of God, your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication;8 Fly fornication;9 Keep not company with fornicators;10 Fornication, and all uncleanness and covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you;11 Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites shall possess the kingdom of God.12

WHY ADULTERY IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED
But the reason why adultery is expressly forbidden is because in addition to the turpitude which it shares with other kinds of incontinence, it adds the sin of injustice, not only against our neighbor, but also against civil society.
Again it is certain that he who abstains not from other sins against chastity, will easily fall into the crime of adultery. By the prohibition of adultery, therefore, we at once see that every sort of immodesty and impurity by which the body is defiled is prohibited. Nay, that every inward thought against chastity is forbidden by this Commandment is clear, as well from the very force of the law, which is evidently spiritual, as also from these words of Christ the Lord: You have heard that it was said to them of old: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.13
These are the points which we have deemed proper matter for public instruction of the faithful. The pastor, however, should add the decrees of the Council of Trent against adulterers, and those who keep harlots and concubines,14 omitting many other species of immodesty and lust, of which each individual is to be admonished privately, as circumstances of time and person may require.*

What this Commandment Prescribes
PURITY ENJOINED
We now come to explain the positive part of the precept. The faithful are to be taught and earnestly exhorted to cultivate continence and chastity with all care, to cleanse themselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God.15
First of all they should be taught that although the virtue of chastity shines with a brighter lustre in those who make the holy and religious vow of virginity, nevertheless it is a virtue which belongs also to those who lead a life of celibacy; or who, in the married state, preserve themselves pure and undefiled from unlawful desire.*
Reflections which Help one to Practice Purity
The holy Fathers have taught us many means whereby to subdue the passions and to restrain sinful pleasure. The pastor, therefore, should make it his study to explain these accurately to the faithful, and should use the utmost diligence in their exposition. Of these means some are reflections, others are active measures.

IMPURITY EXCLUDES FROM HEAVEN
The first kind consists chiefly in our forming a just conception of the filthiness and evil of this sin; for such knowledge will lead one more easily to detest it. Now the evil of this crime we may learn from the fact that, on account of it, man is banished and excluded from the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all evils.

IMPURITY IS A FILTHY SIN
The above-mentioned calamity is indeed common to every mortal sin. But what is peculiar to this sin is that fornicators are said to sin against their own bodies, according to the words of the Apostle: Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body.16 The reason is that such a one does an injury to his own body by violating its sanctity. Hence St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, says: This is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication, that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God.17
Furthermore, what is still more criminal, the Christian who shamefully sins with a harlot makes the members of Christ the members of an harlot, according to these words of St. Paul: Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot is made one body?18 Moreover, a Christian, as St. Paul testifies, is the temple of the Holy Spirit;19 and to violate this temple is nothing else than to expel the Holy Spirit.

ADULTERY IS A GRAVE INJUSTICE
But the crime of adultery involves that of grievous injustice. If, as the Apostle says, they who are joined in wedlock are so subject to each other that neither has power or right over his or her body, but both are bound, as it were, by a mutual bond of subjection, the husband to accommodate himself to the will of the wife, the wife to the will of the husband; most certainly if either dissociate his or her person, which is the right of the other, from him or her to whom it is bound, the offender is guilty of an act of great injustice and wickedness.20

ADULTERY IS DISGRACEFUL
As dread of disgrace strongly stimulates to the performance of duty and deters from the commission of crime, the pastor should also teach that adultery brands its guilty perpetrators with an unusual stigma. He that is an adulterer, says Scripture, for the folly of his heart shall destroy his own soul: he gathereth to himself shame and dishonour, and his reproach shall not be blotted out.21

IMPURITY SEVERELY PUNISHED
The grievousness of the sin of adultery may be easily inferred from the severity of its punishment. According to the law promulgated by God in the Old Testament, the adulterer was stoned to death.22 Nay more, because of the criminal passion of one man, not only the perpetrator of the crime, but a whole city was destroyed, as we read with regard to the Sichemites.23 The Sacred Scriptures abound with examples of the divine vengeance, such as the destruction of Sodom and of the neighboring cities,24 the punishment of the Israelites who committed fornication in the wilderness with the daughters of Moab,25 and the slaughter of the Benjamites.26 These examples the pastor can easily make use of to deter men from shameful lust.*

IMPURITY BLINDS THE MIND AND HARDENS THE HEART
But even though the adulterer may escape the punishment of death, he does not escape the great pains and torments that often overtake such sins as his. He becomes afflicted with blindness of mind, a most severe punishment; he is lost to all regard for God, for reputation, for honor, for family, and even for life; and thus, utterly abandoned and worthless, he is undeserving of confidence in any matter of moment, and becomes unfitted to discharge any kind of duty.
Of this we find examples in the persons of David and of Solomon. David had no sooner fallen into the crime of adultery than he degenerated into a character the very reverse of what he had been before; from the mildest of men he became so cruel as to consign to death Urias, one of his most deserving subjects.27 Solomon, having abandoned himself to the lust of women, gave up the true religion to follow strange gods.28 This sin, therefore, as Osee observes, takes away man's heart and often blinds his understanding.29

Means of Practicing Purity
AVOIDANCE OF IDLENESS
We now come to the remedies which consist in action. The first is studiously to avoid idleness; for, according to Ezechiel, it was by yielding to the enervating influence of idleness that the Sodomites plunged into the most shameful crime of criminal lust.30 *

TEMPERANCE
In the next place, intemperance is carefully to be avoided. I fed them to the full, says the Prophet, and they committed adultery.31 An overloaded stomach begets impurity. This our Lord intimates in these words: Take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness.32 Be not drunk with wine, says the Apostle, wherein is luxury.33 *

CUSTODY OF THE EYES
But the eyes, in particular, are the inlets to criminal passion, and to this refer these words of our Lord: If thine eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.34 The Prophets, also, frequently speak to the same effect. I made a covenant with mine eyes, says Job, that I would not so much as think upon a virgin.35 Finally, there are on record innumerable examples of the evils which have their origin in the indulgence of the eyes. It was thus that David sinned,36 thus that the king of Sichem fell,37 and thus also that the elders sinned who calumniated Susanna.38

AVOIDANCE OF IMMODEST DRESS
Too much display in dress, which especially attracts the eye, is but too frequently an occasion of sin. Hence the admonition of Ecclesiasticus: Turn away thy face from a woman dressed up.39
As women are given to excessive fondness for dress, it will not be unseasonable in the pastor to give some attention to the subject, and sometimes to admonish and reprove them in the impressive words of the Apostle Peter: Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel.40 St. Paul likewise says: Not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire.41 Many women adorned with gold and precious stones, have lost the only true ornament of their soul and body.*

AVOIDANCE OF IMPURE CONVERSATION, READING, PICTURES
Next to the sexual excitement, usually provoked by too studied an elegance of dress, follows another, which is indecent and obscene conversation. Obscene language is a torch which lights up the worst passions of the young mind; and the Apostle has said, that evil communications corrupt good manners.42 Immodest and passionate songs and dances are most productive of this same effect and are, therefore, cautiously to be avoided.
In the same class are to be numbered soft and obscene books which must be avoided no less than indecent pictures. All such things possess a fatal influence in exciting to unlawful attractions, and in inflaming the mind of youth. In these matters the pastor should take special pains to see that the faithful most carefully observe the pious and prudent regulations of the Council of Trent.43

FREQUENTATION OF THE SACRAMENTS
If the occasions of sin which we have just enumerated be carefully avoided, almost every excitement to lust will be removed. But the most efficacious means for subduing its violence are frequent use of confession and Communion, as also unceasing and devout prayer to God, accompanied by fasting and almsdeeds. Chastity is a gift of God.44 To those who ask it aright He does not deny it; nor does He suffer us to be tempted beyond our strength.45

MORTIFICATION
But the body is to be mortified and the sensual appetites to be repressed not only by fasting, and particularly, by the fasts instituted by the Church, but also by watching, pious pilgrimages, and other works of austerity. By these and similar observances is the virtue of temperance chiefly manifested. In connection with this subject, St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: Every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things; and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible one.46 A little after he says: I chastise my body and bring it into subjection, lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. And in another place he says: Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence.47
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Trent3.php
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: contraception 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.275 seconds with 73 queries.