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

[Charles Martel]

In Humanea Vitae contains intrinsically infallible pronouncements because the encyclical itself contains an "ex cathedra" definition like in Article 14 as follows;

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

The pope is definitely speaking ex cathedra  here using papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

[ialmisry]

In Humanea Vitae contains intrinsically infallible pronouncements because the encyclical itself contains an "ex cathedra" definition like in Article 14 as follows;

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

The pope is definitely speaking ex cathedra  here using papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

Then why does your "Magisterium" assiduously avoid saying that your supreme pontiff has spoken ex cathedra?

Btw, given the hairsplitting levels of your "magisterium,"  your supreme pontiffs invoking of it as above is not dispositive.

And "intrinsically infallible": don't recall that in the hierarchy of theological certitude.  Is this another development of doctrine?

[Shiny]

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

And "intrinsically infallible": don't recall that in the hierarchy of theological certitude.  Is this another development of doctrine?

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

Is there something intrinsically evil about "confusion," or must the Church speak with dogmatic authority on every possible issue known to man?

[Alpo]

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

[PeterTheAleut]

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

IYO.

[Alpo]

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

IYO.

Why of course. Hence the "IMO". I don't subscribe to Orthodox version of Magisterium that there should be official declarations from councils or clergy for something to be an Orthodox teaching.

[jmbejdl]

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

Whilst I don't agree completely with your conclusion (the use or otherwise of contraception really is a pastoral and not a dogmatic issue), I do agree that non-abortifacient ABC and NFP are equivalent and that use of either can be sinful.

James

[Apotheoun]

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

I agree.  I am opposed to both artificial birth control and NFP.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

[Alpo]

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

Whilst I don't agree completely with your conclusion (the use or otherwise of contraception really is a pastoral and not a dogmatic issue), I do agree that non-abortifacient ABC and NFP are equivalent and that use of either can be sinful.

James

In what kind of conditions you consider ABC/NFP allowed?

I deem both as similar thing with divorce. ABC/NFP and divorce are all sinful in every case but in some situations all can be pastorally tolerated.

[Fabio Leite]

“What? is marriage a theater? It is a mystery and a type of a mighty thing; and even if thou reverence not it, reverence that whose type it is.'This mystery,' saith he, 'is great, but I speak in regard of Christ and of the Church.' (Eph. v. 32-41); It is a type of the Church, and of Christ…They come, about to be made one body.

See again a mystery of love! If the two become not one, so long as they continue two, they make not many, but when they are come into oneness, they then make many. What do we learn from this? That great is the power of union. The wise counsel of God at the beginning divided the one into two; and being desirous of showing that even after division it remaineth still one, He suffered not that the one should be of itself enough for procreation. For he is not one who is not yet [united] but the half of one; and it is evident from this, that he begetteth no offspring, as was the case also beforetime. Seest thou the mystery of marriage? He made of one, one; and again, having made these two, one, He so maketh one, so that now also man is produced of one. For man and wife are not two men, but one Man…Moreover, from the very fashioning of her body, one may see that they are one, for she was made from his side, and they are, as it were, two halves….

And how become they one flesh? As if thou shouldest take away the purest part of gold, and mingle it with other gold; so in truth here also the woman as it were receiving the richest part fused by pleasure, nourisheth it and cherisheth it, and withal contributing her own share, restoreth it back a Man. And the child is a sort of bridge, so that the three become one flesh, the child connecting, on either side, each to other.

For like as two cities, which a river divides throughout, become one, if a bridge connect them on both sides, so is it in this case; and yet more, when the very bridge in this case is formed of the substance of each. As the body and the head are one body; for they are divided by the neck; but not divided more than connected, for it, lying between them brings together each with the other…What then? when there is no child, will they not be two? Nay, for their coming together hath this effect, it diffuses and commingles the bodies of both.  And as one who hath cast ointment into oil, hath made the whole one; so in truth is it also here.
I know that many are ashamed at what is said, and the cause of this is what I spoke of, your own lasciviousness, and unchasteness. The fact of marriages being thus performed, thus depraved, hath gained the thing an ill name: for ‘marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled.’ (Heb. xiii. 4) Why art thou ashamed of the honorable, why blushest thou at the undefiled? This is for heretics, this is for such as introduce harlots thither. For this cause I am desirous of having it thoroughly purified, so as to bring it back again to its proper nobleness, so as to stop the mouths of the heretics.
The gift of God is insulted, the root of our generation; for about that root there is much dung and filth. This then let us cleanse away by our discourse. Endure then a little while, for he that holdeth filth must endure the stench. I wish to show you that ye ought not to be ashamed at these things, but at those which ye do; but thou, passing by all shame at those, art ashamed at these; surely then thou condemnest God who hath thus decreed….Shall I tell how marriage is also a mystery of the Church? As Christ came into the Church, and she was made of him, and he united with her in a spiritual intercourse, ‘for,’ saith one, ‘I have espoused you to one husband, a pure virgin.’ (2 Cor. xi. 2.) And that we are of Him, he saith, of His members, ‘and of His flesh.’ Thinking then on all these things, let us not cast shame upon so great a mystery.
Marriage is a type of the presence of Christ….If thou drive away all these things [Satanic reverie at the wedding feast], even Christ will come to such a marriage, and Christ being present, the choir of Angels is present also. If thou wilt, He will even now work miracles as He did then; He will make even now the water, wine (John ii.); and what is much more wonderful, He will convert this unstable and dissolving pleasure, this cold desire, and change it into the spiritual. This is to make of water, wine.”
--St John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians

[Charles Martel]

In Humanea Vitae contains intrinsically infallible pronouncements because the encyclical itself contains an "ex cathedra" definition like in Article 14 as follows;

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

The pope is definitely speaking ex cathedra  here using papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

Then why does your "Magisterium" assiduously avoid saying that your supreme pontiff has spoken ex cathedra?

Btw, given the hairsplitting levels of your "magisterium,"  your supreme pontiffs invoking of it as above is not dispositive.

And "intrinsically infallible": don't recall that in the hierarchy of theological certitude.  Is this another development of doctrine?

the Magesterium doesn't have to explain everything that is painfully obvious and in line with Natural Law that neither they, nor the popes or any malformed thinking laity can twist or change to suit their "feelings" or "conscience" at the time.And there is no "hairsplitting" here, the pope has spoken plainly on the issue, there is no need to dissect what he says to avoid or conform to our own "interpretation" in order to have a clear conscience on the issues of ABC, contraception and Abortion. If anyone is splitting hairs  here it's people who want to use the non "ex cathedra" to get away with something or break Natural Law, which they can't. Or at least not change it. The pope has merely reaffirmed what's always been true and doctrinal, there's nothing new here.

[Charles Martel]

  On the Infallibility of Humanae Vitae. Some so-called 'Catholics' claim that the only teachings of the Church that its members are bound to follow are those that have solemnly been declared to be infallible.
       Conversely, they say, any teaching of the Church that has not specifically been declared infallible is open for individual interpretation. This category of teaching would, of course, include those that have addressed such sexual misconduct as fornication, adultery, abortion, divorce, and the use of artificial contraception.        The question of conscience vs. authority must be answered on two levels, the most basic being from the standpoint of "natural law." As defined in Romans 2:12-16 and Jeremiah 31:33, God imprints the natural law on the heart and soul of man, and this leads him to know whether or not an act is moral or evil. In other words, "natural law" is man's instinctual knowledge of what is right and what is wrong — his "conscience."
       St. Thomas Aquinas, who is quoted in The Catechism of the Catholic Church, says that "Natural law is simply the light of intelligence placed within us by God; by it we know what we should do and what we should avoid. God bestowed this light, or this law, with the creation."

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view

[Charles Martel]

The practical effect of pronouncements made under natural law is that they can never be changed — not even by the Pope and all of his assembled Cardinals and Bishops. And they certainly cannot be tampered with by disgruntled lay people and dissident priests!
       But 'Catholics' for a Free Choice is always telling us that we can choose abortion if we do so with a clear conscience. In other words, just as homosexuals are "born that way," some people are born with a conscience that is vestigial in that it does not restrict their activities in the slightest.
       Occasionally these pro-abortion 'Catholics' will quote a Vatican II document entitled Declaration on Religious Freedom in support of their contention that we should be able to do anything our 'conscience' does not object to.
       However, Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., principal author of the Declaration, anticipated this kind of dishonesty. He stated in a footnote to the Abbott-Gallagher edition of the Council texts that

The Declaration does not base the right to the free exercise of religion on 'freedom of conscience.' Nowhere does this phrase occur. And the Declaration nowhere lends its authority to the theory for which the phrase frequently stands, namely, that I have the right to do what my conscience tells me to do, simply because my conscience tells me to do it. This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril is subjectivism — the notion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not the objective truth, which determines what is right and wrong, true or false.[8]

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view

[Charles Martel]

"After settling the question of "natural law," we must turn our attention to the related issue of ex cathedra ('from the chair') pronouncements of the Pope.
       There are two methods by which Catholics may know that a teaching of the Church is infallible and therefore must be obeyed by all Catholics in order to remain Catholic.
       The first of these, of course, is an ex cathedra pronouncement. Popes use this mechanism very infrequently, and then only to address the very fundamentals of Catholic faith. Only once since 1870 has the Pope spoken ex cathedra; on November 1, 1950, when Pope Pius XII declared the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
       Many pro-life theologians have debated the wisdom of having the Church's teachings on birth control and abortion be formally declared infallible, and have decided that this would not be wise in the larger scheme of things. The reason is that such a pronouncement in an area of morals (as opposed to fundamental beliefs) would give the impression that all other moral teachings of the Church were optional. This might lead to a situation where disbelief would run rampant in the areas not specifically addressed ex cathedra, and would lead to more and more demands for such pronouncements in almost every area of Church teaching.

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view

[Charles Martel]

"The Canon of St. Vincent of Lorenz declares that any doctrine that has been taught semper ubique obomnibus — always, everywhere, and by everyone — makes it part of the ordinary and universal Magisterial teaching.[9]
       As shown by the quotes of ancient and modern Catholic theologians in Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3, the prohibition against abortion has indeed been taught semper ubique obomnibus. Therefore, Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae does not declare or create some new doctrine or dogma. It simply reiterates the infallible doctrine that human life is sacred from conception to natural birth.
       From this, we may state without fear of contradiction (from anyone who counts, that is) that the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is, indeed, derived from an infallible doctrine.
       Before wrapping up this discussion on infallibility, we must consider this question: Do we really think that 'Catholic' abortophiles would suddenly stop their child killing if the Pope suddenly issued an ex cathedra decree that abortion was a mortal sin?       Obviously, they would not. Just as with the question of ensoulment, the pro-aborts couldn't really care less about the degree of solemnity of Catholic condemnation of abortion. This is another red herring they use to distract attention from the real issue."

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view

[Charles Martel]

There, I gave some answers by some greater minds than me on the issue and I think they pretty much nailed it.

I think the RCC is pretty clear on the issue and is certainly not what one "feels" or "interprets" regardless of the pope speaking "ex cathedra" or infallibly. It's all in line with Truth and Natural Law, there's nothing to debate here.

So chew on this for a while and get back to me ialmisry and perhaps give me your own "interpretation" of what the Holy Father was talking about in HV.

[Charles Martel]

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

And "intrinsically infallible": don't recall that in the hierarchy of theological certitude.  Is this another development of doctrine?

You can take it easy now there fanboy.

[jmbejdl]

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

Whilst I don't agree completely with your conclusion (the use or otherwise of contraception really is a pastoral and not a dogmatic issue), I do agree that non-abortifacient ABC and NFP are equivalent and that use of either can be sinful.

James

In what kind of conditions you consider ABC/NFP allowed?

I deem both as similar thing with divorce. ABC/NFP and divorce are all sinful in every case but in some situations all can be pastorally tolerated.

I have previously been told by clergy that it was OK for spacing children and the like but sinful to use them for avoiding children completely. Given that the Russian church seems to have the exact same view, judging by what was posted here, and I've yet to see anyone come up with any patristic argument against contraception which doesn't smack of a conflation with abortion, I see no reason dispute what I've been taught.

James

[ialmisry]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."

[ialmisry]

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.

Is there something intrinsically evil about "confusion," or must the Church speak with dogmatic authority on every possible issue known to man?

Did they ever decide how many angels were on a pinhead?

[ialmisry]

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

IYO.

I would say that most Orthodox, like the Fathers, do not make the distinction, instead making the distinction between abortifacients and non-abortifacients.

How they come down on how "sinful" "NFP" and "ABC" is another matter.

[Alpo]

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

Whilst I don't agree completely with your conclusion (the use or otherwise of contraception really is a pastoral and not a dogmatic issue), I do agree that non-abortifacient ABC and NFP are equivalent and that use of either can be sinful.

James

In what kind of conditions you consider ABC/NFP allowed?

I deem both as similar thing with divorce. ABC/NFP and divorce are all sinful in every case but in some situations all can be pastorally tolerated.

I have previously been told by clergy that it was OK for spacing children and the like but sinful to use them for avoiding children completely. Given that the Russian church seems to have the exact same view, judging by what was posted here, and I've yet to see anyone come up with any patristic argument against contraception which doesn't smack of a conflation with abortion, I see no reason dispute what I've been taught.

James

I don't think there is actual disagreement between us. It's just that I'd replace "OK" with "unfortunate practice within the fallen World" i.e. economy. That's how I interpret, say, MPs teaching about the issue.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.

Isn't this like arguing that since the Church fathers never spoke about nuclear warfare that we should therefore not logically assume that they would naturally oppose it?



Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."

I agree in theory, but that leaves too much grey area. There are millionaires in the world who commit abortion because they claim that it would be egotistical and selfish to bring children into the world. And since our spiritual fathers cannot judge our hearts, then they should simply affirm and instruct married couples on the purpose of sexuality and affirm the unequivocal Orthodox principles of Life affirmation.



Selam

[ialmisry]

In Humanea Vitae contains intrinsically infallible pronouncements because the encyclical itself contains an "ex cathedra" definition like in Article 14 as follows;

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

The pope is definitely speaking ex cathedra  here using papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

Then why does your "Magisterium" assiduously avoid saying that your supreme pontiff has spoken ex cathedra?

Btw, given the hairsplitting levels of your "magisterium,"  your supreme pontiffs invoking of it as above is not dispositive.

And "intrinsically infallible": don't recall that in the hierarchy of theological certitude.  Is this another development of doctrine?

the Magesterium doesn't have to explain everything that is painfully obvious and in line with Natural Law

as we have discussed here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
"Natural Law" is an invention of your "Magisterium," and hence anything it doesn't explain not only is not "painfully obvious," but non-existent as well.

that neither they, nor the popes or any malformed thinking laity can twist or change to suit their "feelings" or "conscience" at the time.  And there is no "hairsplitting" here, the pope has spoken plainly on the issue

He spoke plainly in "Unam Sanctam" as well, and in Dictatae Papae, and....in a lot of other documents which you all disown now. Who is twisting or changing to suit their "feelings" or "conscience" on "Unam Sanctam" etc.

there is no need to dissect what he says to avoid or conform to our own "interpretation" in order to have a clear conscience on the issues of ABC, contraception and Abortion. If anyone is splitting hairs  here it's people who want to use the non "ex cathedra" to get away with something or break Natural Law, which they can't. Or at least not change it. The pope has merely reaffirmed what's always been true and doctrinal, there's nothing new here.

Au contraire, quite new, which is why your supreme pontiff had to make Humanae Vitae out of of whole cloth from "Natural Law," devoid of any patristics or scriptural authority (on the linked thread I started to go through it section by section on that.  Maybe I'll see about finishing it, Lord willing).

[ialmisry]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.

Isn't this like arguing that since the Church fathers never spoke about nuclear warfare that we should therefore not logically assume that they would naturally oppose it?

Selam

No, since they had both warfare and what the Vatican calls ABC and NFP.

[jmbejdl]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.

Isn't this like arguing that since the Church fathers never spoke about nuclear warfare that we should therefore not logically assume that they would naturally oppose it?



Selam

I don't think so. When you find the Fathers arguing 'against contraception' they always (unless you know of some passages I've never previously seen) seem to actually be arguing against abortion (either directly or because their understanding of what conception entailed was incorrect). I agree with Isa, the distinction they make appears be between abortifacients and non-abortifacients, but you are, of course, free to disagree with me.

James

[ialmisry]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."

I agree in theory, but that leaves too much grey area.

Much of life is lived in "grey area."  If the path was marked in black and white, it wouldn't be so narrow and less traveled.

There are millionaires in the world who commit abortion because they claim that it would be egotistical and selfish to bring children into the world.

There are poor who claim the same thing, especially if someone else is paying for it.  Money, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it.

And since our spiritual fathers cannot judge our hearts, then they should simply affirm and instruct married couples on the purpose of sexuality and affirm the unequivocal Orthodox principles of Life affirmation.

If there was a magic book of answers like the Muslims have
http://books.google.com/books?id=54TYAAAAMAAJ&q=A+Clarification+of+questions&dq=A+Clarification+of+questions&cd=1
we wouldn't have any need for useless (as you describe them) spiritual fathers.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."

I agree in theory, but that leaves too much grey area.

Much of life is lived in "grey area."  If the path was marked in black and white, it wouldn't be so narrow and less traveled.

There are millionaires in the world who commit abortion because they claim that it would be egotistical and selfish to bring children into the world.

There are poor who claim the same thing, especially if someone else is paying for it.  Money, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it.

And since our spiritual fathers cannot judge our hearts, then they should simply affirm and instruct married couples on the purpose of sexuality and affirm the unequivocal Orthodox principles of Life affirmation.

If there was a magic book of answers like the Muslims have
http://books.google.com/books?id=54TYAAAAMAAJ&q=A+Clarification+of+questions&dq=A+Clarification+of+questions&cd=1
we wouldn't have any need for useless (as you describe them) spiritual fathers.

Now don't create a straw man here brother. Where have I said that there is no need for economy or for personal guidance from our spiritual fathers? My point is that spiritual advice regarding birth control should be commensurate with Church Teaching and apostolic Tradition. Why do we suddenly take a Protestant approach when it comes to the issue of artificial birth control, elevating individual opinions above the clear indications of apostolic truth?


Selam

[ialmisry]

  On the Infallibility of Humanae Vitae. Some so-called 'Catholics' claim that the only teachings of the Church that its members are bound to follow are those that have solemnly been declared to be infallible.
       Conversely, they say, any teaching of the Church that has not specifically been declared infallible is open for individual interpretation. This category of teaching would, of course, include those that have addressed such sexual misconduct as fornication, adultery, abortion, divorce, and the use of artificial contraception.        The question of conscience vs. authority must be answered on two levels, the most basic being from the standpoint of "natural law." As defined in Romans 2:12-16 and Jeremiah 31:33, God imprints the natural law on the heart and soul of man, and this leads him to know whether or not an act is moral or evil. In other words, "natural law" is man's instinctual knowledge of what is right and what is wrong — his "conscience."
       St. Thomas Aquinas, who is quoted in The Catechism of the Catholic Church, says that "Natural law is simply the light of intelligence placed within us by God; by it we know what we should do and what we should avoid. God bestowed this light, or this law, with the creation."
http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view

Yeah, we dealt with this silliness here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
One would think that the proposition that fallen man with "disordered" (to use the scholastics' term) faculties and "darkened" (to use the scholastics' term) intellect can see Creation clearer than Moses and the Evangelists would be laughed at on its face-at least by those who believe in Revelation (for full disclosure: this is why I became Orthodox). It is why you CCC quotes Cicero as its authority on "Natural Law." As for reading it into Romans, that's like Martin Luther wretching Rom. 1:17 out of the context of the Church and building Protestantism on it.

As for confusing "Natual Law" for the promise of the New Covenant in Jermiah "31:33" (according to the Rabbis, 38:33), constituting blasphemy of the highest order, that the places that in the future contradicts the characterization of the "Natural Law" as eternal: those hearts were already created long before.  If "Natural Law" "is bestowed...with creation," it could not be implanted in hearts already created.

The "Spirit of Vatican II" made it clear, you have to obey your supreme pontiff even when he doesn't speak infallibly, underlining the uselessness of Vatican I's solemn pronouncement "for everlasting memorial."

As for divorce, your "Magisterium"'s creation of its Corban factories has solved that.  As to adultery and abortion, the revelation of "Thou shallt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not kill" suffices.

[ialmisry]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."

I agree in theory, but that leaves too much grey area.

Much of life is lived in "grey area."  If the path was marked in black and white, it wouldn't be so narrow and less traveled.

There are millionaires in the world who commit abortion because they claim that it would be egotistical and selfish to bring children into the world.

There are poor who claim the same thing, especially if someone else is paying for it.  Money, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it.

And since our spiritual fathers cannot judge our hearts, then they should simply affirm and instruct married couples on the purpose of sexuality and affirm the unequivocal Orthodox principles of Life affirmation.

If there was a magic book of answers like the Muslims have
http://books.google.com/books?id=54TYAAAAMAAJ&q=A+Clarification+of+questions&dq=A+Clarification+of+questions&cd=1
we wouldn't have any need for useless (as you describe them) spiritual fathers.

Now don't create a straw man here brother. Where have I said that there is no need for economy or for personal guidance from our spiritual fathers? My point is that spiritual advice regarding birth control should be commensurate with Church Teaching and apostolic Tradition. Why do we suddenly take a Protestant approach when it comes to the issue of artificial birth control, elevating individual opinions above the clear indications of apostolic truth?

We don't, and I haven't.

There is no such thing as "artificial birth control" in apostolic truth, nor in Apostolic Tradition, nor Church Teaching.  It is an invention of the Vatican in Humanae Vitae.  You will not find a Father speaking of it, which is why HV is devoid of patristics.

To give a specific, take the man who wants to get a vasectomy (something I oppose, though it is my opinion and, as grounded as I think that is, I cannot at this moment speak of it as an absolute with 100% surety) because his wife has suffered a half dozen or more miscarriages and been told that she cannot carry to term.  Would a spiritual Father err and betray Apostolic Truth, Apostolic Tradition and Church Teaching by giving his blessing and sparing them the heartache of going through that, over and over?

[ialmisry]

The practical effect of pronouncements made under natural law is that they can never be changed — not even by the Pope and all of his assembled Cardinals and Bishops. And they certainly cannot be tampered with by disgruntled lay people and dissident priests!
       But 'Catholics' for a Free Choice is always telling us that we can choose abortion if we do so with a clear conscience. In other words, just as homosexuals are "born that way," some people are born with a conscience that is vestigial in that it does not restrict their activities in the slightest.
       Occasionally these pro-abortion 'Catholics' will quote a Vatican II document entitled Declaration on Religious Freedom in support of their contention that we should be able to do anything our 'conscience' does not object to.
       However, Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., principal author of the Declaration, anticipated this kind of dishonesty. He stated in a footnote to the Abbott-Gallagher edition of the Council texts that

The Declaration does not base the right to the free exercise of religion on 'freedom of conscience.' Nowhere does this phrase occur. And the Declaration nowhere lends its authority to the theory for which the phrase frequently stands, namely, that I have the right to do what my conscience tells me to do, simply because my conscience tells me to do it. This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril is subjectivism — the notion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not the objective truth, which determines what is right and wrong, true or false.[8]

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view

Yes, we have dealt with that silliness already
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
the very idea that fallible man's "Natural Law" cannot be changed, whereas God's revealed Law can be voided (Matthew 15:4-6 giving the only scriptural "warrant" for marriage tribunals and annullments) or nullified (as the OT is often, incorrectly, viewed), or the direct Apostolic injunction (Acts 15 on blood eating) can be laid aside-stuff and nonsense.

"Natural Law"-subjectivism posing as objective Truth.

[ialmisry]

"After settling the question of "natural law," we must turn our attention to the related issue of ex cathedra ('from the chair') pronouncements of the Pope.
       There are two methods by which Catholics may know that a teaching of the Church is infallible and therefore must be obeyed by all Catholics in order to remain Catholic.
       The first of these, of course, is an ex cathedra pronouncement. Popes use this mechanism very infrequently, and then only to address the very fundamentals of Catholic faith. Only once since 1870 has the Pope spoken ex cathedra; on November 1, 1950, when Pope Pius XII declared the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
       Many pro-life theologians have debated the wisdom of having the Church's teachings on birth control and abortion be formally declared infallible, and have decided that this would not be wise in the larger scheme of things. The reason is that such a pronouncement in an area of morals (as opposed to fundamental beliefs) would give the impression that all other moral teachings of the Church were optional. This might lead to a situation where disbelief would run rampant in the areas not specifically addressed ex cathedra, and would lead to more and more demands for such pronouncements in almost every area of Church teaching.

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view

LOL. No shortage of the ex cathedra excuses.  Once again demonstrating not only the uselessness of the nonsense of Pastor Aeternus, but its harm as well.

The lack of the IC and Assumption among "fundamental beliefs" didn't stop your supreme pontiff from speaking up.  If this is so vital (and the constant appeal to it as proof of the Vatican's superiority over Orthodoxy would make it so), he can speak on the record as well.

[ialmisry]

"The Canon of St. Vincent of Lorenz declares that any doctrine that has been taught semper ubique obomnibus — always, everywhere, and by everyone — makes it part of the ordinary and universal Magisterial teaching.[9]
       As shown by the quotes of ancient and modern Catholic theologians in Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3, the prohibition against abortion has indeed been taught semper ubique obomnibus. Therefore, Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae does not declare or create some new doctrine or dogma. It simply reiterates the infallible doctrine that human life is sacred from conception to natural birth.

There is no dispute as to abortion.  But thanks for again demonstrating that many can't make the distinction between abortifacient birth control (which would include killing the mother, btw) and non-abortifacient birth control.

       From this, we may state without fear of contradiction (from anyone who counts, that is) that the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is, indeed, derived from an infallible doctrine.
       Before wrapping up this discussion on infallibility, we must consider this question: Do we really think that 'Catholic' abortophiles would suddenly stop their child killing if the Pope suddenly issued an ex cathedra decree that abortion was a mortal sin?       Obviously, they would not. Just as with the question of ensoulment, the pro-aborts couldn't really care less about the degree of solemnity of Catholic condemnation of abortion. This is another red herring they use to distract attention from the real issue.[/i]"

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view

As you demonstrate, you're the expert on red herring.  I don't touch the stuff.

[ialmisry]

There, I gave some answers by some greater minds than me

was that hard?

on the issue and I think they pretty much nailed it.

Ah, so we are back to your testimony.

I think the RCC is pretty clear on the issue

98% vs. 2%, plus a "magisterium" for whom this is only a theoretical issue, with no "absolute, definitive authoritative ruling" not so clear.

and is certainly not what one "feels" or "interprets" regardless of the pope speaking "ex cathedra" or infallibly. It's all in line with Truth and Natural Law, there's nothing to debate here.

You're right: that it is nonsense is not debatable.

So chew on this for a while and get back to me ialmisry and perhaps give me your own "interpretation" of what the Holy Father was talking about in HV.

though it is not my problem, I've already started on that long ago here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
but that was documenting what he was talking about.  My interpretation is I don't care what he had to say.

[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.

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

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."

Really? It's an innovation that sex during certain times of a woman's cycle does not produce children? Wow. That's news to me.

[mike]

Really? It's an innovation that sex during certain times of a woman's cycle does not produce children? Wow. That's news to me.

It's innovation that people try to define that time.

[Papist]

Really? It's an innovation that sex during certain times of a woman's cycle does not produce children? Wow. That's news to me.

It's innovation that people try to define that time.

People were absolutely incapable of doing this before HV?

[ialmisry]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."

Really? It's an innovation that sex during certain times of a woman's cycle does not produce children? Wow. That's news to me.

It was news to those Fathers you depend on (St. Jerome, Lactiantus, St. Clement of Alexandria etc.) that it was OK to have sex during certain times of a woman's cycle so as to not produce children.  In fact, St. Clement tells us to imitate animals and have sex (making love seems a foreign concept to him) ONLY during certain times of a woman's cycle when she WILL produce children.  St. Augustine was also of a like mind, after using the rhythm method (incorrectly, and unsuccessfully) while a Manichean.

[NicholasMyra]

St. Clement of Alexandria

Is St. Clement of Alexandria a saint in the EO Church?

I thought he wasn't.

[PeterTheAleut]

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

IYO.

Why of course. Hence the "IMO". I don't subscribe to Orthodox version of Magisterium that there should be official declarations from councils or clergy for something to be an Orthodox teaching.

But without a definitive statement of dogma from the Church, your "Orthodox teaching" is merely someone else's theologoumen.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

What evidence is there from Scripture, the Apostles, or the Church Fathers to support your opinions that the Church is universally opposed to artificial birth control?

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.

Isn't this like arguing that since the Church fathers never spoke about nuclear warfare that we should therefore not logically assume that they would naturally oppose it?

That assumes that the Fathers never knew of artificial birth control, a charge I find rather preposterous, since means to prevent the conception of a child are much easier to use than creating a nuclear bomb and have likely been used for centuries before Jesus walked the earth.