Topic: What is the genuine Orthodox position on Artificial Birth Control?

[Papist]

I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

[Shiny]

The answer is unanimous:

"Ask your priest" if you are Orthodox.

Then again what goes on in the bedroom is private from what I hear from a few Orthodox here...

[katherineofdixie]

The answer is unanimous:

"Ask your priest" if you are Orthodox.

Then again what goes on in the bedroom is private from what I hear from a few Orthodox here...

It is a pastoral issue, for the couple to discuss with their priest or spiritual father.

And none of anyone else's beeswax.

[J Michael]

The answer is unanimous:

"Ask your priest" if you are Orthodox.

Then again what goes on in the bedroom is private from what I hear from a few Orthodox here...

It is a pastoral issue, for the couple to discuss with their priest or spiritual father.

And none of anyone else's beeswax.

Like so much in Orthodoxy, it depends on who you ask  .  I came across this from Met. Kallistos Ware, written before he was elevated to Met.: "Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church." Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, 2nd edition, Penguin, 199E p.296.

Then there's this from Fr. Alexander Men: "This is not my own opinion. I have consulted with our bishops and they are of the opinion that a person has a right to practice birth control. Otherwise, they may bring more children into the world than they can support, in which case they will become animals rather than human beings." A. Men', Kul'tura i dukhovnoe vozrozhdenie, (Moscow 1992), pp. 445-450

St. John Chrysostom, I believe, did not countenance artificial contraception or abortion.

[Shiny]

It's still a pastoral issue and that's how it should be.

[J Michael]

It's still a pastoral issue and that's how it should be.

That's as may be, but it certainly hasn't prevented some luminaries of the Church from commenting on it, thereby giving it a greater degree of importance than you suggest.

[Charles Martel]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

[Shiny]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

[J Michael]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

[Shiny]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

[ErmyCath]

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

This is also true of Roman Catholicism... Priests and bishops often engage in private interpretation. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, even in Roman Catholicism, there are instances where artificial birth control is allowed.  So, in a way, forcing people to discuss their particular situation with a priest is a much better solution as he can provide particularized guidance.

In other words, things aren't as simple as they may seem in Roman Catholicism.  Things are presented as this and not that in an incorrect way.  The ABC issue is a good example.

[ialmisry]

It's still a pastoral issue and that's how it should be.

That's as may be, but it certainly hasn't prevented some luminaries of the Church from commenting on it, thereby giving it a greater degree of importance than you suggest.

Certain luminaries of the Church have commented on burning down synagogues as well ("just do it").  They were wrong.

And, as the Winnipeg Statement, Cardinal Martini etc. show, some luminaries of your church haven't been prevented from commenting contrary to what your supreme pontiff said in HV.

The whole of the Russian Orthodox Church have issued a statement on this, and I dare say most Orthodox (and most followers of the Vatican) are in agreement with it.

[Papist]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

Our Church also says that no one should masterbate, but just about every single male in the Church has done it. The Church says that no one should lie, yet every member of the Church has lied. Does that mean the Church should not just proclaim that these things are not sins?

[ialmisry]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

You have an authoritative ruling that refuses to be definitely classed as "ex cathedra," depriving you of an absolute authoritative ruling.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.

[J Michael]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

Are speeding laws invalidated by the fact that many, if not most, people break them?  

It may be that it holds no merit to the faithful, but those faithful, unfortunately have not been educated in their faith very well.  But that's a whole other matter  .

[choy]

I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

It is something not allowed, but can be accomodated by ekonomia if the spiritual father deems that the man/woman/couple cannot fully fast from sex and it is also beneficial to them to space out their children.

[J Michael]

It's still a pastoral issue and that's how it should be.

That's as may be, but it certainly hasn't prevented some luminaries of the Church from commenting on it, thereby giving it a greater degree of importance than you suggest.

Certain luminaries of the Church have commented on burning down synagogues as well ("just do it").  They were wrong.

And, as the Winnipeg Statement, Cardinal Martini etc. show, some luminaries of your church haven't been prevented from commenting contrary to what your supreme pontiff said in HV.

The whole of the Russian Orthodox Church have issued a statement on this, and I dare say most Orthodox (and most followers of the Vatican) are in agreement with it.

I wasn't judging those luminaries, one of whom was St. John Chrysostom, on whether they were right or wrong about the matter.  That's above my pay-grade, as it were.  Just pointing out that the matter is more than *just* a pastoral thing between priest and parishioner(s), although it is that, too.

Do you have a link (in English hopefully!) of the statement of the ROC that you referred to?  That's probably the kind of thing Papist may be looking for.

As for the comments on the luminaries of the Catholic Church about HiV, well....no comment  .  I don't believe that anyone here is looking to find fault, judge or criticize, but rather to get some clarification about whether there is a consensus or an authoritative position in Orthodoxy about artificial contraception.

[J Michael]

I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

It is something not allowed, but can be accomodated by ekonomia if the spiritual father deems that the man/woman/couple cannot fully fast from sex and it is also beneficial to them to space out their children.

This is what I have heard, too, from a couple of Orthodox priests.

[choy]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

God is a God of love.  You cannot have one all-encompassing ruling on everything and expect that the ruling will fit everyone.  A doctor may prescribe 2 different treatments to two different people with the same condition.  That doesn't mean there's no medical standards or no authoritative medical book.  The Church is a hospital, not a law court.

[choy]

I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

It is something not allowed, but can be accomodated by ekonomia if the spiritual father deems that the man/woman/couple cannot fully fast from sex and it is also beneficial to them to space out their children.

This is what I have heard, too, from a couple of Orthodox priests.

I got that from an Introduction to Orthodox Theology book.

[Charles Martel]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Sooo......this has what to do with  the official Church position on this issue?


Oh thatz right nothing.

[Charles Martel]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?

[LBK]

Do you have a link (in English hopefully!) of the statement of the ROC that you referred to?  That's probably the kind of thing Papist may be looking for.

Here you are:

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

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».

Link to the whole document, which deals with a variety of matters:

http://orthodoxeurope.org/print/3/14.aspx

[choy]

We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?

It means the Church Laws are not helping anyone.

[J Michael]

Do you have a link (in English hopefully!) of the statement of the ROC that you referred to?  That's probably the kind of thing Papist may be looking for.

Here you are:

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

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».

Link to the whole document, which deals with a variety of matters:

http://orthodoxeurope.org/print/3/14.aspx

Muchas Gracias!!!! 

[Charles Martel]

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

This is also true of Roman Catholicism... Priests and bishops often engage in private interpretation. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, even in Roman Catholicism, there are instances where artificial birth control is allowed.  So, in a way, forcing people to discuss their particular situation with a priest is a much better solution as he can provide particularized guidance.

In other words, things aren't as simple as they may seem in Roman Catholicism.  Things are presented as this and not that in an incorrect way.  The ABC issue is a good example.

Not when it concerns faith and morals. Church dogma is not up for debate or some priest's private" interpretations.


After all, we are not evangelicals.

[Ashman618]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

Are speeding laws invalidated by the fact that many, if not most, people break them?  

It may be that it holds no merit to the faithful, but those faithful, unfortunately have not been educated in their faith very well.  But that's a whole other matter  .

Or simply don't care to be educated

[J Michael]

We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?

It means the Church Laws are not helping anyone.

It means that those who disobey the law are not "helped" by it, and it probably also means that their catechesis is sorely lacking--a major concern, imho, in the Catholic Church today, especially...well...pretty much everywhere.  It also means that people, being people, break laws and have done so since Adam took the apple offered by Eve.

[J Michael]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

Are speeding laws invalidated by the fact that many, if not most, people break them?  

It may be that it holds no merit to the faithful, but those faithful, unfortunately have not been educated in their faith very well.  But that's a whole other matter  .

Or simply don't care to be educated

I'm not sure that there's any defense against not caring to be educated, except, perhaps the prayers of others and good preaching in the parishes.

[ErmyCath]

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

This is also true of Roman Catholicism... Priests and bishops often engage in private interpretation. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, even in Roman Catholicism, there are instances where artificial birth control is allowed.  So, in a way, forcing people to discuss their particular situation with a priest is a much better solution as he can provide particularized guidance.

In other words, things aren't as simple as they may seem in Roman Catholicism.  Things are presented as this and not that in an incorrect way.  The ABC issue is a good example.

Not when it concerns faith and morals. Church dogma is not up for debate or some priest's private" interpretations.


After all, we are not evangelicals.

You have never encountered a priest or bishop providing a personal interpretation?  Theologians, who are normally priests and bishops, do this all the time -- in the realms of faith and morals. 

I agree the dogma is not up for debate, but its application certainly is.  As I pointed out, there is a general rule against ABC, but there are also certain situations where it may be used without sin. 

Moreover, there is a general rule against avoiding conception.  Yet, spouses may legitimately do so with NFP under certain circumstances.  But, then, NFP may be sinful when used with an illegitimate end in mind.  Our Orthodox posters have informed us that their teaching is the same for ABC...

The question, then, is whether there is a marked difference between ABC and NFP...

Really now... is there really much difference between the Catholic and Orthodox perspective here?  The Orthodox perspective adds another layer of assistance for the laity by placing these issues under the glance of a priest, which would be helpful for Catholics using NFP to do voluntarily, if they could find a priest to advise them...

[Shiny]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?

How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?

[Charles Martel]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

You have an authoritative ruling that refuses to be definitely classed as "ex cathedra," depriving you of an absolute authoritative ruling.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.

WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL?

"When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the
responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does
not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It
must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of
the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual
self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal
cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely
practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not
undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by
the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"
(Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Does the Church teach that the unnatural or artificial means of birth
control are immoral and blameworthy?  Yes. In Humanae Vitae, the
first-named form of illicit or unnatural method of birth control is
abortion (n. 14).[3]

Then, "equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has
frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or
temporary whether of the man or woman" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This condemns
tubal ligations, vasectomies, and the Pill.

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the
conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its
natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14).  Such unnatural forms include
the Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal,
mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

[Cyrillic]

How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?

Yes, and the other 2% lied.

[Charles Martel]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

"
But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?

How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo

[Cyrillic]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

"
But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?

How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo

Nice source. Where did St. Augustine say that? (not that I disagree with the quote, though)

[J Michael]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

"
But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?

How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo

That sounds familiar  .

[choy]

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo

No one here disagrees with this.  But the question is, how is this helping anyone repent?

[ErmyCath]

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo

No one here disagrees with this.  But the question is, how is this helping anyone repent?

Very succinctly put. I'd add: how is the allowance of NFP and disallowance of ABC helping people repent if the mentality is the same?  The selfish mentality is the root of the sin and it is merely manifesting in different ways -- NFP or ABC.

[katherineofdixie]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

[J Michael]

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo

No one here disagrees with this.  But the question is, how is this helping anyone repent?

Perhaps by getting them to actually think about what *is* right and what *is* wrong rather than the, "hey... if it feels good, do it" trap of relativism?

[Charles Martel]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

"
But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?

How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo

Nice source. Where did St. Augustine say that? (not that I disagree with the quote, though)

I want to say Confessiones or City of God, not really sure but I can get back to you on that.

I'm sure another more read RC will beat me to it.

[Charles Martel]

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo

No one here disagrees with this.  But the question is, how is this helping anyone repent?

Very succinctly put. I'd add: how is the allowance of NFP and disallowance of ABC helping people repent if the mentality is the same?  The selfish mentality is the root of the sin and it is merely manifesting in different ways -- NFP or ABC.

Agreed.

[ialmisry]

It's still a pastoral issue and that's how it should be.

That's as may be, but it certainly hasn't prevented some luminaries of the Church from commenting on it, thereby giving it a greater degree of importance than you suggest.

Certain luminaries of the Church have commented on burning down synagogues as well ("just do it").  They were wrong.

And, as the Winnipeg Statement, Cardinal Martini etc. show, some luminaries of your church haven't been prevented from commenting contrary to what your supreme pontiff said in HV.

The whole of the Russian Orthodox Church have issued a statement on this, and I dare say most Orthodox (and most followers of the Vatican) are in agreement with it.

I wasn't judging those luminaries, one of whom was St. John Chrysostom

no, he was not.  I've dealt with that somewhere here.

on whether they were right or wrong about the matter.  That's above my pay-grade, as it were.  Just pointing out that the matter is more than *just* a pastoral thing between priest and parishioner(s), although it is that, too.

It is exactly that.  Those who (mostly celibates with issues with marriage) have tried to make it into a dogmatic issue have succeeded only in making fools of themselves.

Do you have a link (in English hopefully!) of the statement of the ROC that you referred to?  That's probably the kind of thing Papist may be looking for.

Michael gave it in the other thread which split into this thread.

As for the comments on the luminaries of the Catholic Church about HiV, well....no comment  .  I don't believe that anyone here is looking to find fault, judge or criticize, but rather to get some clarification about whether there is a consensus or an authoritative position in Orthodoxy about artificial contraception.

So far such inquirers have not been satisfied by satisfactory answers.

[ialmisry]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

You have an authoritative ruling that refuses to be definitely classed as "ex cathedra," depriving you of an absolute authoritative ruling.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.

WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL?

"When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the
responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does
not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It
must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of
the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual
self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal
cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely
practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not
undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by
the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"
(Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Does the Church teach that the unnatural or artificial means of birth
control are immoral and blameworthy?  Yes. In Humanae Vitae, the
first-named form of illicit or unnatural method of birth control is
abortion (n. 14).[3]

Then, "equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has
frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or
temporary whether of the man or woman" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This condemns
tubal ligations, vasectomies, and the Pill.

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the
conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its
natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14).  Such unnatural forms include
the Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal,
mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

Yes, I've read Humanae Vitae.  Your source doesn't say a thing on its "ex cathedra" status.

Get back to us when you can give us an absolutely authoritative ruling on that status.

[choy]

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

You have an authoritative ruling that refuses to be definitely classed as "ex cathedra," depriving you of an absolute authoritative ruling.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.

WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL?

"When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the
responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does
not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It
must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of
the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual
self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal
cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely
practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not
undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by
the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"
(Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Does the Church teach that the unnatural or artificial means of birth
control are immoral and blameworthy?  Yes. In Humanae Vitae, the
first-named form of illicit or unnatural method of birth control is
abortion (n. 14).[3]

Then, "equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has
frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or
temporary whether of the man or woman" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This condemns
tubal ligations, vasectomies, and the Pill.

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the
conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its
natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14).  Such unnatural forms include
the Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal,
mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

Yes, I've read Humanae Vitae.  Your source doesn't say a thing on its "ex cathedra" status.

Get back to us when you can give us an absolutely authoritative ruling on that status.

Burn!