Patriarch: Pope Is Like-Minded on Morals, Values

Status
Not open for further replies.

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
You are also blinkered by your determination to prove that Orthodoxy is a moral morass with regard to abortion.   Your intention has been evident for quite some time.
Fact of the matter is that I do not for a moment think that Orthodoxy, or the Orthodox, are in MORE of a moral morass than the Catholic Church.  I'd be a durned idiot to try and make that claim stick.

What I have been trying to point out...as Father Ambrose Young and Father Augustine were trying also to point out to you over time on Irenikon...is that there is no clear formal teaching in Orthodoxy at the moment leading to less ambiguity rather than more ambiguity with regards sexual morality and the modern world.

So again, I challenge the Patriarch when he says that he and the Pope are like-minded on moral issues.

I think there's still a good bit of work to be done before that condition pertains in truth.

Mary
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
/\ /\   That message is a follow on from this one below.  The basic topic to which I am responding is the contention by a young Orthodox convert that marriage is an inferior spiritual state, specifically, that there is no theosis occurring for sexually active married couples and their best option is to be abstinent!!


Fr Ambrose:

"My opinion is, following Saint Paul, that the sacrament of marriage has the
expectation of connubial activity between the married couple. Without it the
unitive aspect of marriage is under assault. If our Lord wanted people to live
in sexless marriage He would have indicated that and the Church would have
created an alternative wedding ceremony without the numerous references to "fair
children" and "may you see your children's children" etc."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/27700

and

Fr Ambrose:

I find *****'s idea that theosis is not happening for the great part of
the Church, those sexually active in marriage, an intriguing one. Most of our
people are not on the path of theosis!! If you think about it in Catholic terms
it would be tantamount to claiming that supernatural grace has been removed from
their souls. They are spiritually dead. For Catholics this dire condition of
spiritual death is created by mortal sin but for the Orthodox it would seem to
be created by the Sacrament of Matrimony and the attendant sexual activity!!

These are not ideal questions, are they... there are serious concerns for many
in the Church if what **** is saying about no theosis for the married
(until after death) is correct.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/34294

 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,984
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
mike said:
elijahmaria said:
And I continue to be convinced that, de facto, there are Orthodox clergy and bishops, who will make the occasional exception for abortion sending ALL the wrong signals to their flocks.
As well as RC Clergy and Bishops.
You may well be right.  But they tend not to express that personal perspective where the faithful and other clergy can hear it.  If that were true about Orthodox clergy and bishops, I would not have heard it often enough to be concerned.

Also as I noted earlier Father Stanley in his text on Orthodox moral theology explicitly allows for abortion to save the life of the mother.  In that text there is NO discussion of or distinction drawn between double effect and abortion.  Nor have I ever heard anyone explain double effect in any Orthodox discussion of moral theology.

You are missing the vocabulary of "double effect" in Fr Harakas' words?    Why should you require him to use that terminology?     You should know that the Orthodox do not speak in principle of "double effect."    It is a Roman Catholic construal (as Fr Kimel would say.)   But the morality of the choices and the thinking which underlies them is the same. Please do not use the absence of "double effect" terminology among the Orthodox in an attempt to denigrate the Orthodox and make out that we allow abortion.

Double Effect

"This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results. The principle has its historical roots in the medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274), and has been refined both in its general formulation and in its application by generations of Catholic moral theologians.

"The principle of double effect, once largely confined to discussions by Catholic moral theologians, in recent years has figured prominently in the discussion of both ethical theory and applied ethics by a broad range of contemporary philosophers. "

http://www.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

As I said, it is a peculiar Roman Catholic and medieval concept which was birthed outside of Orthodxy and has generally been " largely confined to discussions by Catholic moral theologians."
Father Stanley knows English pretty well.  He never speaks of 'treating the mother' in the hopes that both will live.  He speaks of allowing "ABORTION" in an attempt to save the mother's life.

Now there's a clear difference. 

And he specifically says that "abortion" is justified if it is to save the mother's life.

Treating the mother in the hopes that BOTH will live is NEVER called abortion.

Mary
I have been told that the potential situation of having to choose between mother and baby as to which should live rarely, if ever, occurs anymore. The Orthodox Church, to my knowledge, is not in the habit of making glib official pronouncements on who who should live and who should die just to cover potentialities. If a decision is imminent, and what doctor would not try to save both?, then it should be made by the people involved with pastoral counsel. I fail to see how not pronouncing officially on a potentiality which may never occur due to medical advances, makes the Orthodox Church's position on infanticide less than an unqualified negative.  If we're looking at hypotheticals to arrive at teaching, we're on shifting sands. Abortion/infanticide for whatever reason, even in the unlikely event that it would save the mother's life, is always wrong. Killing in self defense is always wrong. There are penances for both. And such is also an impediment to ordination.
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,984
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Irish Hermit said:
/\ /\   That message is a follow on from this one below.  The basic topic to which I am responding is the contention by a young Orthodox convert that marriage is an inferior spiritual state, specifically, that there is no theosis occurring for sexually active married couples and their best option is to be abstinent!!


Fr Ambrose:

"My opinion is, following Saint Paul, that the sacrament of marriage has the
expectation of connubial activity between the married couple. Without it the
unitive aspect of marriage is under assault. If our Lord wanted people to live
in sexless marriage He would have indicated that and the Church would have
created an alternative wedding ceremony without the numerous references to "fair
children" and "may you see your children's children" etc."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/27700

and

Fr Ambrose:

I find *****'s idea that theosis is not happening for the great part of
the Church, those sexually active in marriage, an intriguing one. Most of our
people are not on the path of theosis!! If you think about it in Catholic terms
it would be tantamount to claiming that supernatural grace has been removed from
their souls. They are spiritually dead. For Catholics this dire condition of
spiritual death is created by mortal sin but for the Orthodox it would seem to
be created by the Sacrament of Matrimony and the attendant sexual activity!!

These are not ideal questions, are they... there are serious concerns for many
in the Church if what **** is saying about no theosis for the married
(until after death) is correct.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/34294
If theosis were impossible for those married with children, we would not have married saints. But we have quite a few married saints, besides the language in the marriage service and the writings of the Fathers.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
You are also blinkered by your determination to prove that Orthodoxy is a moral morass with regard to abortion.  Your intention has been evident for quite some time.
What I have been trying to point out...as Father Ambrose Young and Father Augustine were trying also to point out to you over time on Irenikon...is that there is no clear formal teaching in Orthodoxy at the moment leading to less ambiguity rather than more ambiguity with regards sexual morality and the modern world.
If that is what the trio of you are trying to point out then I think you are way off beam and depressingly defeatist.

Are you seriously saying that the Church has dealt with sexual morality in every "modern world" for the last 20 centuries but now.... along comes the 21st century and the Church is stumped for answers!!!  It is adrift in a sea of moral ambiguities.    The World had finally defeated the wisdom and knowledge of the Church!  The best we can tell our people is... "Yes, we have had to deal with moral issues for 2,000 years in every different generation but now, in the year 2010 we cannot offer answers!!"
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
elijahmaria said:
Fr. George said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.  
This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it.    The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."
You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years.  You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time.  What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder.  I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.
Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe.  Proof?
If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice,  and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person,  then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Ambrois O Maonaigh <emrys@globe.net.nz>
reply-to Irenikon@yahoogroups.com
date Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:35 AM
subject [Irenikon] Re: Sexuality and Contraception (a query to Fr. Ambrose)


--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:

>
> So that leaves abstinence...for difficult cases....

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois
I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it.  For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about.  You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly.  Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference.  Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife.  To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose.  IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
PeterTheAleut said:
elijahmaria said:
Fr. George said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years. 
This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it.    The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."
You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years.  You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time.  What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder.  I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.
Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe.  Proof?
If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice,  and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person,  then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Ambrois O Maonaigh <emrys@globe.net.nz>
reply-to Irenikon@yahoogroups.com
date Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:35 AM
subject [Irenikon] Re: Sexuality and Contraception (a query to Fr. Ambrose)


--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:

>
> So that leaves abstinence...for difficult cases....

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois
I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it.  For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about.
That is why I tried to offer a bit of context in message 81 above.  I don't want the world to think that I go round seeing women as "luscious cherries" even if the Song of Songs refers to them as such !!

IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.
And so do I.  And I am really puzzled.  The Mary I know and love is staunchly and rigorously honest.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
PeterTheAleut said:
elijahmaria said:
Fr. George said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.  
This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it.    The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."
You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years.  You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time.  What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder.  I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.
Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe.  Proof?
If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice,  and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person,  then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Ambrois O Maonaigh <emrys@globe.net.nz>
reply-to Irenikon@yahoogroups.com
date Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:35 AM
subject [Irenikon] Re: Sexuality and Contraception (a query to Fr. Ambrose)


--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:

>
> So that leaves abstinence...for difficult cases....

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois
I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it.  For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about.  You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly.  Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference.  Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife.  To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose.  IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.
I was there for the entire run of many threads on related subjects.  I certainly do know the context.

And it is quite clear that Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is of the opinion that it is too difficult for married couples to abstain from sexual relations, even for brief periods and it is much better to offer Orthodox couples the option of barrier method birth control, and that is not only an option in Orthodoxy but it is the preferred option.

Again, I will say that the Patriarch is not quite correct when he says that he and the Pope is of like-mind with respect to sexual morality.

Father Ambrose, New Zealand, has every expectation that the Patriarch in question will support his proffered use of barrier method birth control.

That is what I have been saying.  It is what I will continue to say till circumstance changes where I can see it and then I will change my mind along with circumstance.

Till then, it is no lie to say what I have said here.

Mary

PS: You are more than willing to take Father Augustine's and Father Ambrose Young's posts totally out of context and shoot Father Augustine like a duck in a carnival arcade.  That seems to be just fine.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
PeterTheAleut said:
elijahmaria said:
Fr. George said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years. 
This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it.    The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."
You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years.  You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time.  What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder.  I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.
Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe.  Proof?
If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice,  and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person,  then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Ambrois O Maonaigh <emrys@globe.net.nz>
reply-to Irenikon@yahoogroups.com
date Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:35 AM
subject [Irenikon] Re: Sexuality and Contraception (a query to Fr. Ambrose)


--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:

>
> So that leaves abstinence...for difficult cases....

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois
I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it.  For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about.  You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly.  Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference.  Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife.  To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose.  IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.
I was there for the entire run of many threads on related subjects.  I certainly do know the context.

And it is quite clear that Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is of the opinion that it is too difficult for married couples to abstain from sexual relations, even for brief periods
It is my expectation that the married couples in my parish will abstain from sexual relations for the 49 days of the Great Fast.  This is one facet of the fast on which I always preach to the faithful as Lent approaches.

I personally do not think that 49 days without sex is at all a brief period for a married couple and more strength to those who manage the complete 7 week fast.

May I ask how long your Catholic clergy require their married people to abstain from sex?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
elijahmaria said:
PeterTheAleut said:
elijahmaria said:
Fr. George said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.  
This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it.    The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."
You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years.  You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time.  What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder.  I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.
Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe.  Proof?
If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice,  and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person,  then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Ambrois O Maonaigh <emrys@globe.net.nz>
reply-to Irenikon@yahoogroups.com
date Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:35 AM
subject [Irenikon] Re: Sexuality and Contraception (a query to Fr. Ambrose)


--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:

>
> So that leaves abstinence...for difficult cases....

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois
I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it.  For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about.  You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly.  Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference.  Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife.  To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose.  IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.
I was there for the entire run of many threads on related subjects.  I certainly do know the context.
You certainly may know the context, but you misrepresent it here on this thread.  Encouraging a married couple to have sex is NOT an endorsement of sexual promiscuity, which is how most will understand your phrase "sexual license".

elijahmaria said:
And it is quite clear that Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is of the opinion that it is too difficult for married couples to abstain from sexual relations, even for brief periods and it is much better to offer Orthodox couples the option of barrier method birth control, and that is not only an option in Orthodoxy but it is the preferred option.
So what?  I'm addressing only your accusation that Fr. Ambrose advocates sexual license.

elijahmaria said:
Again, I will say that the Patriarch is not quite correct when he says that he and the Pope is of like-mind with respect to sexual morality.

Father Ambrose, New Zealand, has every expectation that the Patriarch in question will support his proffered use of barrier method birth control.

That is what I have been saying.  It is what I will continue to say till circumstance changes where I can see it and then I will change my mind along with circumstance.

Till then, it is no lie to say what I have said here.
But you have to admit that you're being dishonest by alleging that Fr. Ambrose advocates sexual license and by withholding information that refutes your allegation.  As I learned honesty, not telling the whole truth is often as bad as telling a lie.

elijahmaria said:
PS: You are more than willing to take Father Augustine's and Father Ambrose Young's posts totally out of context and shoot Father Augustine like a duck in a carnival arcade.  That seems to be just fine.
??? ??? ???  I said absolutely nothing about Fr. Augustine and Fr. Ambrose Young, so I have no idea at all what you're accusing me of here.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
PeterTheAleut said:
elijahmaria said:
Fr. George said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.  
This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it.    The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."
You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years.  You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time.  What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder.  I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.
Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe.  Proof?
If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice,  and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person,  then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Ambrois O Maonaigh <emrys@globe.net.nz>
reply-to Irenikon@yahoogroups.com
date Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:35 AM
subject [Irenikon] Re: Sexuality and Contraception (a query to Fr. Ambrose)


--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:

>
> So that leaves abstinence...for difficult cases....

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois
I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it.  For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about.  You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly.  Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference.  Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife.  To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose.  IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.

PS: You are more than willing to take Father Augustine's and Father Ambrose Young's posts totally out of context and shoot Father Augustine like a duck in a carnival arcade.  That seems to be just fine.
I am not taking aim at "Father Augustine" but at his perverse statements on marriage and sexuality.  You yourself did that too.

Why do you call him "Father Augustine"?  Who has tonsured him a monk?  My understanding is that he was received by the Greeks and became a spiritual child of Fr Ambrose Young.  Then lately he has left the Greeks... and may have entered ROCA?    If he is in fact a tonsured monk how on earth did he receive a canonical transfer from the Greeks to ROCA?  Nobody in ROCA seems to have heard of him.

Hitherto I have kept his name under wraps in this thread.  He is young and a work in progress, but you have now named him publicly.   Perhaps you could ask him these questions on your e-list?
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
PeterTheAleut said:
But you have to admit that you're being dishonest by alleging that Fr. Ambrose advocates sexual license and by withholding information that refutes your allegation.  As I learned honesty, not telling the whole truth is often as bad as telling a lie.
No. I don't need to admit that at all.  

We are speaking in the context of an Orthodox Patriarch saying that he and the Catholic Pope are of like mind on moral issues.

In the context of ALL methods of birth control in Catholic marriages, for a priest to encourage a couple to go ahead and use barrier methods because abstinence is too difficult is an example of sexual license.  Perhaps you simply cannot follow my line of reasoning because you do not have a Catholic phronema.

Since Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is very clear that his bishop supports his actions and so thereby his Patriarch.  Since that is the case my conclusions stand.

There is no moral like mindedness between the Patriarch in question and the Pope when it comes to artificial birth control.  So the entire assertion can be thrown out till there is a closer and more clearly stated accord.

Mary
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
PeterTheAleut said:
elijahmaria said:
Fr. George said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.  
This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it.    The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."
You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years.  You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time.  What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder.  I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.
Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe.  Proof?
If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice,  and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person,  then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Ambrois O Maonaigh <emrys@globe.net.nz>
reply-to Irenikon@yahoogroups.com
date Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:35 AM
subject [Irenikon] Re: Sexuality and Contraception (a query to Fr. Ambrose)


--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:

>
> So that leaves abstinence...for difficult cases....

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois
I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it.  For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about.  You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly.  Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference.  Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife.  To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose.  IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.

PS: You are more than willing to take Father Augustine's and Father Ambrose Young's posts totally out of context and shoot Father Augustine like a duck in a carnival arcade.  That seems to be just fine.
I am not taking aim at "Father Augustine" but at his perverse statements on marriage and sexuality.  You yourself did that too.

Why do you call him "Father Augustine"?  Who has tonsured him a monk?  My understanding is that he was received by the Greeks and became a spiritual child of Fr Ambrose Young.  Then lately he has left the Greeks... and may have entered ROCA?    If he is in fact a tonsured monk how on earth did he receive a canonical transfer from the Greeks to ROCA?  Nobody in ROCA seems to have heard of him.

Hitherto I have kept his name under wraps in this thread.  He is young and a work in progress, but you have now named him publicly.   Perhaps you could ask him these questions on your e-list?
You will have to ask him yourself.  I have your private letter telling me that you were going to write to his mother and his bishop.  Apparently you've done your checking already.  I truly hope you did not bother his mother with such things.

This is really an Orthodox-Orthodox issue now, so perhaps you'd like to start a new thread about your findings on Father Deacon Augustine?

Mary
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Since Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is very clear that his bishop supports his actions and so thereby his Patriarch.  Since that is the case my conclusions stand.

There is no moral like mindedness between the Patriarch in question and the Pope when it comes to artificial birth control.  So the entire assertion can be thrown out till there is a closer and more clearly stated accord.
Oh my!  So now you have ratcheted it up a peg and are accusing my bishops and my Patriarch of promoting sexual licence!!!

 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
PeterTheAleut said:
elijahmaria said:
Fr. George said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years. 
This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it.    The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."
You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years.  You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time.  What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder.  I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.
Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe.  Proof?
If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice,  and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person,  then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Ambrois O Maonaigh <emrys@globe.net.nz>
reply-to Irenikon@yahoogroups.com
date Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:35 AM
subject [Irenikon] Re: Sexuality and Contraception (a query to Fr. Ambrose)


--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:

>
> So that leaves abstinence...for difficult cases....

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois
I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it.  For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about.  You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly.  Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference.  Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife.  To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose.  IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.

PS: You are more than willing to take Father Augustine's and Father Ambrose Young's posts totally out of context and shoot Father Augustine like a duck in a carnival arcade.  That seems to be just fine.
I am not taking aim at "Father Augustine" but at his perverse statements on marriage and sexuality.  You yourself did that too.

Why do you call him "Father Augustine"?  Who has tonsured him a monk?  My understanding is that he was received by the Greeks and became a spiritual child of Fr Ambrose Young.  Then lately he has left the Greeks... and may have entered ROCA?    If he is in fact a tonsured monk how on earth did he receive a canonical transfer from the Greeks to ROCA?  Nobody in ROCA seems to have heard of him.

Hitherto I have kept his name under wraps in this thread.  He is young and a work in progress, but you have now named him publicly.  Perhaps you could ask him these questions on your e-list?
You will have to ask him yourself.  I have your private letter telling me that you were going to write to his mother and his bishop.
I believe that several of us, including the onlist bishop, toyed with the notion of writing to his bishop at the time he was bombarding the e-list with his septic views of marriage.  I imagine that nobody actually did.

This is really an Orthodox-Orthodox issue now, so perhaps you'd like to start a new thread about your findings on Father Deacon Augustine?
Somebody has made him a deacon?  Is he a hierodeacon or one of these newfangled celibate deacons?
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Since Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is very clear that his bishop supports his actions and so thereby his Patriarch.  Since that is the case my conclusions stand.

There is no moral like mindedness between the Patriarch in question and the Pope when it comes to artificial birth control.  So the entire assertion can be thrown out till there is a closer and more clearly stated accord.
Oh my!  So now you have ratcheted it up a peg and are accusing my bishops and my Patriarch of promoting sexual licence!!!
Barrier method birth control, if what you say is correct.  That is what fits into my own assertion concerning the Patriarch's somewhat premature announcement about the like-mindedness of the Catholic Pope on moral issues.

M.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Barrier method birth control, if what you say is correct. 
To be exact, that is not what I say.  "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology.    The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
That is what fits into my own assertion concerning the Patriarch's somewhat premature announcement about the like-mindedness of the Catholic Pope on moral issues.
If you read the Zenit article, it is not making the claims that you think.

http://www.zenit.org/article-29930?l=english

Here for example are the Patriarch's words:

"However, in his approach on many public and moral issues, the Pope coincides fully with the approach of the Russian Orthodox Church.."

Notice the many, not all.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
That is what fits into my own assertion concerning the Patriarch's somewhat premature announcement about the like-mindedness of the Catholic Pope on moral issues.
If you read the Zenit article, it is not making the claims that you think.

http://www.zenit.org/article-29930?l=english

Here for example are the Patriarch's words:

"However, in his approach on many public and moral issues, the Pope coincides fully with the approach of the Russian Orthodox Church.."

Notice the many, not all.
Well there ya have it.  End of discussion.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Barrier method birth control, if what you say is correct.   
To be exact, that is not what I say.  "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology.    The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."
Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Barrier method birth control, if what you say is correct.   
To be exact, that is not what I say.  "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology.    The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."
Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.
Is there an ectopic pregnancy surgery which does not act as an abortifacient?
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
elijahmaria said:
Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.
This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill. 
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Barrier method birth control, if what you say is correct.   
To be exact, that is not what I say.  "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology.    The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."
Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.
Is there an ectopic pregnancy surgery which does not act as an abortifacient?
The is NO chance for viability of the baby in an ectopic pregnancy.  Zero chance.  No exceptions.

Do you know anyone who calls ectopic surgery an abortion?

 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
stanley123 said:
elijahmaria said:
Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.
This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill. 
How is it problematical?  It is sinful.  But does it negate the teaching?

 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Barrier method birth control, if what you say is correct. 
To be exact, that is not what I say.  "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology.    The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."
Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.
Is there an ectopic pregnancy surgery which does not act as an abortifacient?
The is NO chance for viability of the baby in an ectopic pregnancy.  Zero chance.  No exceptions.

Do you know anyone who calls ectopic surgery an abortion?
I would regard the surgery needed to end an ectopic pregnancy as involving an abortifacient procedure.  The foetus does not come out of it alive.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Barrier method birth control, if what you say is correct.   
To be exact, that is not what I say.  "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology.    The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."
Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.
Is there an ectopic pregnancy surgery which does not act as an abortifacient?
The is NO chance for viability of the baby in an ectopic pregnancy.  Zero chance.  No exceptions.

Do you know anyone who calls ectopic surgery an abortion?
I would regard the surgery needed to end an ectopic pregnancy as involving an abortifacient procedure.  The foetus does not come out of it alive.
I would regard an ectopic pregnancy as a non-viable pregnancy under any conditions.  Therefore ectopic surgery is not, morally speaking, an abortion.

Recommending ectopic surgery is morally not in the same class as recommending artificial birth control because one cannot fathom how a married couple can practice periodic abstinence.

M.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
That is what fits into my own assertion concerning the Patriarch's somewhat premature announcement about the like-mindedness of the Catholic Pope on moral issues.
If you read the Zenit article, it is not making the claims that you think.

http://www.zenit.org/article-29930?l=english

Here for example are the Patriarch's words:

"However, in his approach on many public and moral issues, the Pope coincides fully with the approach of the Russian Orthodox Church.."

Notice the many, not all.
Well there ya have it.  End of discussion.
Why should that be surprising?  You started this discussion--yeah, I know, Fr. Ambrose started the thread, but the real debate started with you--by jumping all over the birth control and abortion wagon. ;)
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
PeterTheAleut said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
That is what fits into my own assertion concerning the Patriarch's somewhat premature announcement about the like-mindedness of the Catholic Pope on moral issues.
If you read the Zenit article, it is not making the claims that you think.

http://www.zenit.org/article-29930?l=english

Here for example are the Patriarch's words:

"However, in his approach on many public and moral issues, the Pope coincides fully with the approach of the Russian Orthodox Church.."

Notice the many, not all.
Well there ya have it.  End of discussion.
Why should that be surprising?  You started this discussion--yeah, I know, Fr. Ambrose started the thread, but the real debate started with you--by jumping all over the birth control and abortion wagon. ;)
:angel:
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,691
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
Irish Hermit and elijahmaria,

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large.  This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public.  Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed.  Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Schultz said:
Irish Hermit and elijahmaria,

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large.  This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public.  Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed.  Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.
You are quite right and I am sorry I sailed out into that deep!!

I apologize to Father Ambrose as well.

I should have caved when Father George called for proof.  I knew it was time then and I did the opposite. 

I was wrong.

M.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
elijahmaria said:
stanley123 said:
elijahmaria said:
Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.
This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill. 
How is it problematical?  It is sinful.  But does it negate the teaching?
Why are they not excommunicated since they are having abortions by taking the pill?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Schultz said:
Irish Hermit and elijahmaria,

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large.  This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public.  Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed.  Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.
You are quite right and I am sorry I sailed out into that deep!!

I apologize to Father Ambrose as well.

I should have caved when Father George called for proof.  I knew it was time then and I did the opposite. 

I was wrong.

M.
APOLOGY

Dear Mary,

Thank you. I accept your apology and saying that you were wrong in the claim that I have been preaching sexual licence to the faithful for years. 

Thank you to Schultz who has brought this to a conclusion.

And to Mary -my own apology for any stress I have caused.

Fr Ambrose
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Schultz said:
Irish Hermit and elijahmaria,

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large.  This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public.  Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed.  Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.
You are quite right and I am sorry I sailed out into that deep!!

I apologize to Father Ambrose as well.

I should have caved when Father George called for proof.  I knew it was time then and I did the opposite. 

I was wrong.

M.
APOLOGY

Dear Mary,

Thank you. I accept your apology and saying that you were wrong in the claim that I have been preaching sexual licence to the faithful for years.   

Thank you to Schultz who has brought this to a conclusion.

And to Mary -my own apology for any stress I have caused.

Fr Ambrose
It's true Father.  You are not a licentious priest or man nor do you encourage such behaviors in a general way.

I still think that Orthodoxy, in general, is making a moral mistake by calling for artificial birth control methods rather than teaching periodic abstinence as the rule.  I think you in particular are equally mistaken and do give license to certain kinds of thinking that are not conducive to spiritual depth and growth.  I cannot apologize for that.

I think my own Church will learn this lesson...and by that I mean shepherds and flocks...and I believe yours will as well....one way or another.

M.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
stanley123 said:
elijahmaria said:
stanley123 said:
elijahmaria said:
Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.
This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill. 
How is it problematical?  It is sinful.  But does it negate the teaching?
Why are they not excommunicated since they are having abortions by taking the pill?
They are Stanley.  Nobody stands up and points fingers at them because we don't know who they are in many cases...most cases...But they excommunicate themselves by their behaviors and lack of repentance and they commune to their own condemnation.

And that is not a joke and is not something to be brushed aside.  We should pray for them every moment of every day for there are souls in the balance and the harder the heart the more chance they have of damnation.

But nobody really believes that anymore do they  :p
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,984
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Schultz said:
Irish Hermit and elijahmaria,

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large.  This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public.  Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed.  Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.
You are quite right and I am sorry I sailed out into that deep!!

I apologize to Father Ambrose as well.

I should have caved when Father George called for proof.  I knew it was time then and I did the opposite. 

I was wrong.

M.
APOLOGY

Dear Mary,

Thank you. I accept your apology and saying that you were wrong in the claim that I have been preaching sexual licence to the faithful for years.   

Thank you to Schultz who has brought this to a conclusion.

And to Mary -my own apology for any stress I have caused.

Fr Ambrose
It's true Father.  You are not a licentious priest or man nor do you encourage such behaviors in a general way.

I still think that Orthodoxy, in general, is making a moral mistake by calling for artificial birth control methods rather than teaching periodic abstinence as the rule.   I think you in particular are equally mistaken and do give license to certain kinds of thinking that are not conducive to spiritual depth and growth.  I cannot apologize for that.

I think my own Church will learn this lesson...and by that I mean shepherds and flocks...and I believe yours will as well....one way or another.

M.
And so it continues. When will you understand that the Orthodox Church does not "call for artificial birth control methods." Where do you find this except for the teachings of some priests? What canon allows this? What holy elder allows for it in his writings? You have cited very little evidence and nothing that would make this the teaching of the Orthodox Church. There is no blessing for it. If married couples do it and some spiritual fathers are understanding in the matter because the use of non-abortofacient birth control prevents a greater sin as they come to understand in giving pastoral  counsel, this does not indicate that it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Because a spiritual father chooses, for reasons of trying to prevent a soul's destruction, not to enforce the stricture of a canon, this does not mean that the Orthodox Church is lax in a matter. In many local churches, such as the Greek Orthodox Church, as I have been given to understand, those using non-abortofacient birth control can only commune four times a year on certain great feasts. But you want to justify yourself by denigrating the Orthodox Church.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Shanghaiski said:
And so it continues. When will you understand that the Orthodox Church does not "call for artificial birth control methods." Where do you find this except for the teachings of some priests? What canon allows this? What holy elder allows for it in his writings? You have cited very little evidence and nothing that would make this the teaching of the Orthodox Church. There is no blessing for it. If married couples do it and some spiritual fathers are understanding in the matter because the use of non-abortofacient birth control prevents a greater sin as they come to understand in giving pastoral  counsel, this does not indicate that it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Because a spiritual father chooses, for reasons of trying to prevent a soul's destruction, not to enforce the stricture of a canon, this does not mean that the Orthodox Church is lax in a matter. In many local churches, such as the Greek Orthodox Church, as I have been given to understand, those using non-abortofacient birth control can only commune four times a year on certain great feasts. But you want to justify yourself by denigrating the Orthodox Church.
I will understand these things more fully when they are made more clear formally by Orthodox hierarchs and clergy.  I expect the continuing dialogue between Rome and the Orthodox hierarchs will help to clarify many things.

Who are you trying to justify here?  Inquiring minds and all that since you choose to accuse....

Mary
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
stanley123 said:
elijahmaria said:
stanley123 said:
elijahmaria said:
Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.
This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill. 
How is it problematical?  It is sinful.  But does it negate the teaching?
Why are they not excommunicated since they are having abortions by taking the pill?
They are Stanley.  Nobody stands up and points fingers at them because we don't know who they are in many cases...most cases...But they excommunicate themselves by their behaviors and lack of repentance and they commune to their own condemnation.

And that is not a joke and is not something to be brushed aside.  We should pray for them every moment of every day for there are souls in the balance and the harder the heart the more chance they have of damnation.

But nobody really believes that anymore do they  :p
I think the blame lies with Pope Paul VI and his adamantine forbidding of all contraception as mortally sinful and bringing damnation.

By Catholic teaching a woman is damned if she uses either the Pill or if she cooperates with her husband in using condoms.  Both methods bring eternal death.    So the couple will simply choose whichever method suits them better, knowing that both damn them equally.

By contrast the Orthodox know that they are permitted to use condoms but not permitted to use abortive methods such as the Pill.    So they will choose to use condoms.  (I not saying that some do not use the Pill though.)


We know from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that around 97% of married Catholics use contraceptive methods which their Church condemns as gravely sinful.  It is probably true that the majority of these are not bothering with condoms but instead are using the abortifacient Pill.

Truly sad, that Catholics are aborting so many millions of their young.  It would have been far better if Paul VI had taken a less hard-line view and allowed the use of condoms.  The Catholic rate of murder would have been far less.

In this respect I would agree with Mary that the Patriarch was wrong in seeing our moral ethos as identical.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
stanley123 said:
elijahmaria said:
stanley123 said:
elijahmaria said:
Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.
This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill. 
How is it problematical?  It is sinful.  But does it negate the teaching?
Why are they not excommunicated since they are having abortions by taking the pill?
They are Stanley.  Nobody stands up and points fingers at them because we don't know who they are in many cases...most cases...But they excommunicate themselves by their behaviors and lack of repentance and they commune to their own condemnation.

And that is not a joke and is not something to be brushed aside.  We should pray for them every moment of every day for there are souls in the balance and the harder the heart the more chance they have of damnation.

But nobody really believes that anymore do they  :p
I think the blame lies with Pope Paul VI and his adamantine forbidding of all contraception as mortally sinful and bringing damnation.

By Catholic teaching a woman is damned if she uses either the Pill or if she cooperates with her husband in using condoms.  Both methods bring eternal death.    So the couple will simply choose whichever method suits them better, knowing that both damn them equally.

By contrast the Orthodox know that they are permitted to use condoms but not permitted to use abortive methods such as the Pill.    So they will choose to use condoms.   (I not saying that some do not use the Pill though.)


We know from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that around 97% of married Catholics use contraceptive methods which their Church condemns as gravely sinful.  It is probably true that the majority of these are not bothering with condoms but instead are using the abortifacient Pill.

Truly sad, that Catholics are aborting so many millions of their young.   It would have been far better if Paul VI had taken a less hard-line view and allowed the use of condoms.  The Catholic rate of murder would have been far less.

In this respect I would agree with Mary that the Patriarch was wrong in seeing our moral ethos as identical.
The difficulty with such laxity, Father, is that you can take this same parsing of better and worse sins and apply it to every sin in the Decalogue.

Murder as opposed to a little high strung tension and frustration....as though a little frustration and tension over time cannot harden the human heart!!

A little harmless playful passive sexual desire acted out as fantasy internally, as opposed to full blown and active lust....as though the fantasy of the libido over time cannot harden the human heart!!

etc., etc., etc.

It is an asinine argument, Father and one not worthy of a faith steeped in the desert fathers as well as the patristic ones!!

Well...there goes the neanderthal!!...I just cannot seem to be able to pull myself up out of the dark ages of Catholic guilt!

Mary
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Shanghaiski said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Schultz said:
Irish Hermit and elijahmaria,

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large.  This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public.  Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed.  Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.
You are quite right and I am sorry I sailed out into that deep!!

I apologize to Father Ambrose as well.

I should have caved when Father George called for proof.  I knew it was time then and I did the opposite. 

I was wrong.

M.
APOLOGY

Dear Mary,

Thank you. I accept your apology and saying that you were wrong in the claim that I have been preaching sexual licence to the faithful for years.   

Thank you to Schultz who has brought this to a conclusion.

And to Mary -my own apology for any stress I have caused.

Fr Ambrose
It's true Father.  You are not a licentious priest or man nor do you encourage such behaviors in a general way.

I still think that Orthodoxy, in general, is making a moral mistake by calling for artificial birth control methods rather than teaching periodic abstinence as the rule.   I think you in particular are equally mistaken and do give license to certain kinds of thinking that are not conducive to spiritual depth and growth.  I cannot apologize for that.

I think my own Church will learn this lesson...and by that I mean shepherds and flocks...and I believe yours will as well....one way or another.

M.
And so it continues. When will you understand that the Orthodox Church does not "call for artificial birth control methods." Where do you find this except for the teachings of some priests? What canon allows this? What holy elder allows for it in his writings? You have cited very little evidence and nothing that would make this the teaching of the Orthodox Church. There is no blessing for it. If married couples do it and some spiritual fathers are understanding in the matter because the use of non-abortofacient birth control prevents a greater sin as they come to understand in giving pastoral  counsel, this does not indicate that it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Because a spiritual father chooses, for reasons of trying to prevent a soul's destruction, not to enforce the stricture of a canon, this does not mean that the Orthodox Church is lax in a matter. In many local churches, such as the Greek Orthodox Church, as I have been given to understand, those using non-abortofacient birth control can only commune four times a year on certain great feasts. But you want to justify yourself by denigrating the Orthodox Church.
Father Ambrose makes my case.

Thanks.

Mary
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Father Ambrose makes my case.

Thanks.
Please go back to message 64 which gives my Church's teaching on contraception
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28877.msg459865.html#msg459865

The unfortunate policy of the Catholic Church has resulted in the ongoing murder of millions of Catholic babies by Catholic women using the Pill.

Possibly Pope Paul VI had not taken the enormous number of these homicides into consideration when he issued Humanae Vitae in 1965.  At the time of his writing the encyclical the use of the Pill was being made available to the masses.

By contrast the Orthodox permission to use condoms avoids such murders of the innocent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top