The Catholic Route to Birth Control

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
stanley123 said:
Wyatt said:
The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.
Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?
The answer to this is very important because it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.
by whom is the question.

elijahmaria said:
I ask that it be published here and then I will refrain from any other comment on birth control in this thread, please.

1. There is no! precept in the Catholic Church against continence in marriage, meaning that there is nothing in Catholic morality that precludes a couple from deciding not to engage in conjugal lovemaking, sex.
Raises the question, why are they married? That is against the nature of marriage.  As our Lord points out, citing Genesis.

And IIRC the Vatican does forbid this, when it suppressed the Celtic form of monasticism of couples living "as brother and sister" rather than entering the monastery and convent. There are also canons against having "sisters" in the same house.

elijahmaria said:
2.  And in the inverse, according to the unitive principle of the sacrament of marriage, there is no precept against the couple having intercourse, conjugal lovemaking, at OTHER periods from the fertile period.

3.  Openness to life NECESSARILY involves the act of conjugal sex.  IF you are not engaging in the sex act, you cannot be accused of being closed off to life.
Sure you can. Much of what St. Jerome says in his praise of virginity and his hatred of children are among the most eloquent proof.
I now direct the attack against the passage in which, wishing to show your cleverness, you institute a comparison between virginity and marriage. I could not forbear smiling, and I thought of the proverb, did you ever see a camel dance? Are virgins better, you ask, than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were married men? Are not infants daily fashioned by the hands of God in the wombs of their mothers? And if so, are we bound to blush at the thought of Mary having a husband after she was delivered? If they find any disgrace in this, they ought not consistently even to believe that God was born of the Virgin by natural delivery. For according to them there is more dishonour in a virgin giving birth to God by the organs of generation, than in a virgin being joined to her own husband after she has been delivered. Add, if you like, Helvidius, the other humiliations of nature, the womb for nine months growing larger, the sickness, the delivery, the blood, the swaddling-clothes. Picture to yourself the infant in the enveloping membranes. Introduce into your picture the hard manger, the wailing of the infant, the circumcision on the eighth day, the time of purification, so that he may be proved to be unclean. We do not blush, we are not put to silence. The greater the humiliations He endured for me, the more I owe Him. And when you have given every detail, you will be able to produce nothing more shameful than the cross, which we confess, in which we believe, and by which we triumph over our enemies.
But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.
And now that I am about to institute a comparison between virginity and marriage, I beseech my readers not to suppose that in praising virginity I have in the least disparaged marriage, and separated the saints of the Old Testament from those of the New, that is to say, those who had wives and those who altogether refrained from the embraces of women: I rather think that in accordance with the difference in time and circumstance one rule applied to the former, another to us upon whom the ends of the world have come. So long as that law remained, Genesis 1:28 Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth; and Cursed is the barren woman that bears not seed in Israel, they all married and were given in marriage, left father and mother, and became one flesh. But once in tones of thunder the words were heard, 1 Corinthians 7:29 The time is shortened, that henceforth those that have wives may be as though they had none: cleaving to the Lord, we are made one spirit with Him. And why? Because He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife. And there is a difference also between the wife and the virgin. She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. Why do you cavil? Why do you resist? The vessel of election says this; he tells us that there is a difference between the wife and the virgin. Observe what the happiness of that state must be in which even the distinction of sex is lost. The virgin is no longer called a woman. 1 Corinthians 7:34 She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. A virgin is defined as she that is holy in body and in spirit, for it is no good to have virgin flesh if a woman be married in mind.
But she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. Do you think there is no difference between one who spends her time in prayer and fasting, and one who must, at her husband's approach, make up her countenance, walk with mincing gait, and feign a show of endearment? The virgin's aim is to appear less comely; she will wrong herself so as to hide her natural attractions. The married woman has the paint laid on before her mirror, and, to the insult of her Maker, strives to acquire something more than her natural beauty. Then come the prattling of infants, the noisy household, children watching for her word and waiting for her kiss, the reckoning up of expenses, the preparation to meet the outlay. On one side you will see a company of cooks, girded for the onslaught and attacking the meat: there you may hear the hum of a multitude of weavers. Meanwhile a message is delivered that the husband and his friends have arrived. The wife, like a swallow, flies all over the house. She has to see to everything. Is the sofa smooth? Is the pavement swept? Are the flowers in the cups? Is dinner ready? Tell me, pray, where amid all this is there room for the thought of God? Are these happy homes? Where there is the beating of drums, the noise and clatter of pipe and lute, the clanging of cymbals, can any fear of God be found? The parasite is snubbed and feels proud of the honour. Enter next the half-naked victims of the passions, a mark for every lustful eye. The unhappy wife must either take pleasure in them, and perish, or be displeased, and provoke her husband. Hence arises discord, the seed-plot of divorce. Or suppose you find me a house where these things are unknown, which is a rara avis indeed! Yet even there the very management of the household, the education of the children, the wants of the husband, the correction of the servants, cannot fail to call away the mind from the thought of God. Genesis 18:11 It had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women: so the Scripture says, and afterwards Abraham received the command, Genesis 21:12 In all that Sarah says unto you, hearken unto her voice. She who is not subject to the anxiety and pain of child-bearing and having passed the change of life has ceased to perform the functions of a woman, is freed from the curse of God: nor is her desire to her husband, but on the contrary her husband becomes subject to her, and the voice of the Lord commands him, In all that Sarah says unto you, hearken unto her voice. Thus they begin to have time for prayer. For so long as the debt of marriage is paid, earnest prayer is neglected.
I do not deny that holy women are found both among widows and those who have husbands; but they are such as have ceased to be wives, or such as, even in the close bond of marriage, imitate virgin chastity. The Apostle, Christ speaking in him, briefly bore witness to this when he said, 1 Corinthians 7:34 She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how she may please the Lord: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. He leaves us the free exercise of our reason in the matter. He lays no necessity upon anyone nor leads anyone into a snare: he only persuades to that which is proper when he wishes all men to be as himself. He had not, it is true, a commandment from the Lord respecting virginity, for that grace surpasses the unassisted power of man, and it would have worn an air of immodesty to force men to fly in the face of nature, and to say in other words, I want you to be what the angels are. It is this angelic purity which secures to virginity its highest reward, and the Apostle might have seemed to despise a course of life which involves no guilt. Nevertheless in the immediate context he adds, 1 Corinthians 7:25 But I give my judgment, as one that has obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good by reason of the present distress, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is. What is meant by present distress? Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! The reason why the wood grows up is that it may be cut down. The field is sown that it may be reaped. The world is already full, and the population is too large for the soil. Every day we are being cut down by war, snatched away by disease, swallowed up by shipwreck, although we go to law with one another about the fences of our property. It is only one addition to the general rule which is made by those who follow the Lamb, and who have not defiled their garments, for they have continued in their virgin state. Notice the meaning of defiling. I shall not venture to explain it, for fear Helvidius may be abusive. I agree with you, when you say, that some virgins are nothing but tavern women; I say still more, that even adulteresses may be found among them, and, you will no doubt be still more surprised to hear, that some of the clergy are inn-keepers and some monks unchaste. Who does not at once understand that a tavern woman cannot be a virgin, nor an adulterer a monk, nor a clergy-man a tavern-keeper? Are we to blame virginity if its counterfeit is at fault? For my part, to pass over other persons and come to the virgin, I maintain that she who is engaged in huckstering, though for anything I know she may be a virgin in body, is no longer one in spirit.
I have become rhetorical, and have disported myself a little like a platform orator. You compelled me, Helvidius; for, brightly as the Gospel shines at the present day, you will have it that equal glory attaches to virginity and to the marriage state. And because I think that, finding the truth too strong for you, you will turn to disparaging my life and abusing my character (it is the way of weak women to talk tittle-tattle in corners when they have been put down by their masters), I shall anticipate you. I assure you that I shall regard your railing as a high distinction, since the same lips that assail me have disparaged Mary, and I, a servant of the Lord, am favoured with the same barking eloquence as His mother.
elijahmaria said:
4. It is possible to not want children at all ever, and in general terms, that would be a sinful intent in marriage
Is it sinful in monasticism?
That was, and is, an accusation brought against monasticism:failure to produce the next generation.. But that is part of the point of the monasticism, and there is more to it than that.

But there is more to marriage than just procreating too.

elijahmaria said:
HOWEVER, if the health of man or wife precludes children without grave risk to all, then the Church will permit marriage even for those who cannot bear children, knowing in her wisdom that God provides in strange ways.

5. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, has none of these complexities of human interaction and relationship, provides for sex-on-demand, has NO ascetic value at all in the life of the couple, and allows for sexual intercourse that is patently, expressly and intently closed to life.
So you think that "ABC" makes marriage simple?

elijahmaria said:
6. NFP does not allow for sexual intercourse that is patently closed off to the possibility of life.
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?
Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.

Mary
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?
Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.
Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.

As to the mystery of human relationships, it is clear that they remained a mystery to St. Jerome et alia. Not that that afflicts all celibates: Fr. Braga of the Romanian Orthodox Monastery demonstrates that he knows a great dear on the topic of human relationships.

As to knowing a great more about the Ortodox Catholic Church than the Vatican, I should hope so, though I attended the latter's schools. But since Orthodoxy cannot be contained in your contraceptive box, I don't know what you gleaned from my knowlege of Orthodoxy from this thread.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?
Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.
Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.
Bologna
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?
Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.
Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.
Bologna
Papist said:
Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law. I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina. In fact, if you read the bible, Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.

I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason.

What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods? I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.

The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively. It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally. Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
[
As I have noted in the past:  We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?
Your dismal outlook is depressing.  Despite differences over issues such as contraception and divorce, there is much more around which we can unite and speak of to Western Europe.

You speak about "formal teaching" and "not the sinfulness of members"?  When 90% of the members are engaging in the sinfulness, what it is that you imagine the Muslims and the non-believers take notice of?  The reality of how Christianity is lived by its faithful, something the non-believers see and experience almost every day?  Or the unheeded publications from the Vatican?  Please, let's touch reality for a moment!  I often think that the reality of Orthodoxy's teaching on contraception is appreciated by outsiders.  Our teaching and the lives of our faithful coincide.  Whereas the Catholic teaching does not coincide and the reality is seen as amounting to great hypocrisy.
I have a realistic outlook on our "shared" moral teachings.  They are not shared...at the moment.  Some may share them but many do not.

I say an occasional rosary with a group of Muslim women in the area.  They are an interesting mix of beliefs and attitudes.  Some of them will go with me to the monthly NFP meetings that are held in the area.  There are several sets of couples per parish who have started cells of couples who are using NFP to either space children or to assist them to conceive.  They are also pretty traditional in the rest of their Catholic practice as well.  There's a very positive response from the Muslim women.

I think you need to get out more and meet more faithful Catholics.  Perhaps you don't meet many because you simply don't have time and don't really believe they exist.

At any rate, one cannot separate moral teaching from doctrinal teaching either so if you think we are heretics then I expect that you'd be honest enough to realize we have no grace in our sacraments, we have no real spiritual lives as a corollary...and so we really have no moral grounds to stand on either.

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.
Such throw-away remarks tend to inflate the ego but they do not correspond with reality.  Is Pope Benedict guilty of being "content with nominalism" when he is keen for our two Churches to work together in Western Europe? 
It was not intended as a toss-off at all.

[size=10pt]In fact, some months ago you were a twitchit over the fact that Pope Benedict noted that he was pleased to see that second marriages in Orthodoxy were penitential unions and not fully sacramental. 

He's a smart fellow so I don't think he was playing games with that remark.  I think he was sending a very pointed message.[/size
I wasn't atwitchet (like the word though) because when we get down to it I don't care very much about the Pope of Rome spreading disinformation on Orthodoxy.   Either he is ignorant of the nature of Orthodox second marriages or he was being disingenuous and playing to his Catholic audience, perhaps attempting to gloss over the differences.

As for a "pointed message" the message received by the Orthodox was, as I have said, Benedict is ignorant of our matrimonial theology or he does know and, for purposes of his own, was being dishonest.   
BTW: Twitchet is feminine.  Twitchit is masculine.  One soft, the other sharp...heh!

The point is that some Orthodox are more in line with Rome's moral precepts and some are not.  So there is, at the moment, no way to devise a formal and shared teaching.

At one time I remember to getting pretty shrill over the fact that I noted that there are still times, and places where the crowns are withheld in second marriages in Orthodoxy, or some penance is imposed....all these things depending on pastoral determinations.  There are SOME Orthodox shepherds who will willingly admit that second marriages are penitential in nature, ascetic in character depending upon the behaviors of one or both of the couples.

But as long as there is no clear statement or willingness to make a clear statement that second marriages are not the same as first marriages, then there's no grounds for presenting a unified face to the world.

Was it in Cyprus this year that the Church said that they will not recognize civil divorce?  That the couple must also take their case through a Church tribunal of some sort?

It is that sort of thing that will make it much more clear that divorce should never be the norm, nor taken for granted.

There's a wonderful ecumenical group of pastors here where I am who have organized themselves and dedicated a portion of their time in ministry to saving marriages that are on the rocks...very proactive.  I am deeply impressed by them and their blessed project.  That is also the sort of thing one would expect to see and hear coming from some agreed statement about the sanctity of marriage.

Over the years I've worked with about 20 couples on the rocks who are still struggling, still married in the face of some personal distresses that are severe but not threatening to life and limb, and they are together on principle and in faith, still love one another though there are times when they loathe the presence of the other.  And as they age, and as they mature, some very good things are happening, in their lives personally and in the communities in which they live and worship on account of their faithfulness.

I NEVER hear you talk about those kinds of things.  All you do is mock the Catholic Church's practices of annulment, and talk about how happy you are to facilitate second marriages.  So what am I to conclude.  You can get pretty shrill now and then.

But you are right about one thing, when it comes to morality and its expression, and how we present to the world....Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church are often divided by a fairly deep chasm, at least in the terms in which you present things.

M.
But the US tribunals require that the Catholic couple obtain a civil divorce before applying for the marriage annulment. If Jesus was against divorce, why do the Catholic tribunals require it even before looking at the case?
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
Look, this NFP vs. ABC issue is being made much more complicated than is necessary.
NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.
According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.
It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.

NFP does not violate this principle, because it is the nature of sex not to produce children during the non-fertile periods.

ABC is a violation of this natural law principal, because it purposely frustrates the nature of sex during fertile periods.

On the other hand, NFP does not frustrate the prupose of sex.
There is nothing contrary to natural law about abstaining from sex for certain periods. But when one does engage in sex, one must not purposely frustrate its prupose: procreation during the fertile periods.
Do you think that a surgical bypass to reduce one's weight would be a violation of the natural law ? A person has this operation so that he can enjoy eating but still lose weight, while the food goes down the tube and is discarded? Would this amount to a frustation of the nature and primary purpose of eating?
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
This is about the extent of the depth that we are going to get out of this discussion and I don't doubt that opening a new thread on the topic of the mystery of Christian sexuality will only degenerate as this topic has and perhaps even more quickly. 

I will leave this thread with a book recommendation for those so inclined:

Purity. The Mystery of Christian Sexuality:  by Deitrich vonHildebrand

Originally published under the title: In Defense of Purity
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I hope this thread has been instructive to all Orthodox reading this Forum section, who actually think that there's any chance that there can be cooperation on moral and social issues between our confessions.  If this is indicative of the depth of Orthodox thinking on such matters, I doubt that we'll be doing much at all in tandem.

On a personal note, my son argues the wisdom of Robert Anton Wilson against the deceit of the Catholic Church using many the same tactics as Isa uses to argue the wisdom of Orthodoxy against the deceit of the Catholic Church.  I don't spend much time in discussion with my son any longer, either.

M.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
I hope this thread has been instructive to all Orthodox reading this Forum section, who actually think that there's any chance that there can be cooperation on moral and social issues between our confessions.
So why has Pope Benedict proposed it?  Can he not see as clearly as you do? 
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Obviously, Pope Benedict needs to spend more time on internet discussion boards to find out what Orthodox are really like.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
I hope this thread has been instructive to all Orthodox reading this Forum section, who actually think that there's any chance that there can be cooperation on moral and social issues between our confessions. 
Was someone specific seeking such cooperation?

elijahmaria said:
If this is indicative of the depth of Orthodox thinking on such matters, I doubt that we'll be doing much at all in tandem.
Only if you reduce all the moral and social teaching  of the Vatican to making a distinction between you see as articial and natural contraception.  I thought it dealt with a broader array of issues.

I don't think we dealth with the Orthodox teaching on such matters at all, superficial or deep. Did I miss something?

On a personal note, my son argues the wisdom of Robert Anton Wilson against the deceit of the Catholic Church using many the same tactics as Isa uses to argue the wisdom of Orthodoxy against the deceit of the Catholic Church.  I don't spend much time in discussion with my son any longer, either.
Never heard of him.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
ialmisry said:
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?
Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.
Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.
Bologna
Papist said:
Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law. I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina. In fact, if you read the bible, Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.

I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason.

What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods? I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.

The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively. It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally. Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.
If you think that objecting to the pull out method is about nonthing more than mechanics, then you don't understad sex at all
 

Paisius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Florida
I have to say the level of blatant hypocrisy shown by Catholics and the Catholic Church on this subject is absolutely staggering. I had never read Humanae Vitae before but decided to read it after what Isa said about it. He is absolutely correct about the document; there is not one single reference to Tradition or to the Fathers.....not one, zero, zilch, nada. In fact as has been pointed out the patristic consensus seems to be that sex is for procreation and that doing anything to frustrate that is gravely sinful. Even recent popes have made statements that preclude anything that potentially frustrates conception.


Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.- Pope Pius XI


In order to get around the fact that there is no patristic support for NFP Pope Paul appeals not to Aposolic Tradition, but rather to some vague idea of "natural law." So to try and make the case that the Orthodox Church has abandoned Tradition while the Catholic Church has remained faithful is simply not true. The reality is both Churches have changed their attitude towards marital relations and we both allow couples to "frustrate conception" under certain circumstances. The only difference is the methods that we allow.




In Christ
Joe

 

Paisius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Florida
theistgal said:
So you're saying both Churches have abandoned Tradition, in this area at least?

It certainly appears both Churches have a more nuanced view on the subject. Both Churches have taken a more sympathetic view of allowing couples to take steps to space out children while still appreciating the unitive aspect of marital relations.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
Neither does coitus interruptus.
Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law.
Every coitus ends in a withdrawal. That's the nature of things. How soon is too soon?

Papist said:
I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina.
Given the nature of things, not all makes it/stays there.

Then there is the question, given the nature of semen according to Aquinas, of the morality of not delievering it there according to natural law, i.e. forgoing marriage.

He has some interesting views on semen:
Now the soul is infected with the corruption of original sin by the carnal semen....Accordingly the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed, as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): "In whom all have sinned": whereas it is in the bodily semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power of the semen that original sin together with human nature is transmitted to the child...Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin...The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational soul, but disposes the matter for it...The corruption of original sin is nowise caused by God, but by the sin alone of our first parent through carnal generation. And so, since creation implies a relation in the soul to God alone, it cannot be said that the soul is tainted through being created. On the other hand, infusion implies relation both to God infusing and to the flesh into which the soul is infused. And so, with regard to God infusing, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through being infused; but only with regard to the body into which it is infused
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2083.htm

Papist said:
In fact, if you read the bible
I do
Papist said:
Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.
He's come up before:
ialmisry said:
This is alwasy interesting:
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).
This always ignores the mention of why Onan was spilling seed-if it is not important, why is it mentioned? The reference to Deut. is defense of a weak exegesis, if not eisogesis.  The humiiliation was for not marrying the woman.  That is not what Onan did.  He took her with no intention of giving her a son, but using her for sex.
ialmisry said:
I don't claim St. Jerome as the authority on sexual morality (God forbid!), but the apologists for Humanae Vitae claim him.  Honestly requires I cite those Fathers upon which they depend (as HV doesn't cite patristics. It can't).  Since I do not follow HV  (at least in particulars), those who follow HV  are bound to follow him, not I. I'm just citing the record.
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
Do feel free, however, to cite any Church Father on Onan.

Papist said:
ialmisry said:
According to your patristics, it is an outrage against the nature of sex to indulge during the non-fertile periods.
I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason. But if you want to talk Patristics, the Catholic position is MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers
Your problem is that your "patristic position" argues from "reason."

ialmisry said:
Papist said:
NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.
According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.
It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.
During which periods women desire sex more, because they are at their fertile period.  You even can claim some patristics on that, aready quoted:
ialmisry said:
Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.
Our distinction between NFP and artificial contraception is hardly "artificial." Using the natural fertility cycle of a woman to space pregnancies is hardly the same as throwing some latex between a husband and wife or taking a pill.
Or withdrawing a....: he has to eventually.  And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."
As for "MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers," well, if you hold intercourse (including marital, during fertile periods) unclean like St. Jerome, to be tolerated only for the unpleasant duty of begetting children (preferably to redeem their parents by choosing monasticism over marriage), well there is patristic basis for that.  But not for the scheme set up by Humanae Vitae.

Papist said:
than the EO position, which basically ignores them
No, we just don't proof text from the Fathers, on this or any other issue.  We stick with the overwhelming Fathers who exercised the discretion not to interject the opinions/attitudes of celibates (which can be very interesting, even to go into detail on what sexual positions are "moral" and why) into the intimate relations of the married, and held fast to the Apostolic Tradition that marriage is honorable and the marital bed undefiled.  This consensus of discretion is embodied in the marriage rite, and the moral theology.

Papist said:
and then pretends like the EO Church has never changed.
She hasn't. Ever since Christ blessed the marriage at Cana.
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
How about using "ABC" during the non-fertile periods?
What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods?
Combining contraceptive methods is not uncommon in the least.
Papist said:
I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.
I can assure you it is not.
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
It closes one off from being "open to life."
1. NFP is open to life because it should not be used with a contraceptive mentalilty ("I am only going to have x number of kids and that is it").
Although its working does not depend on mentality, it depends on "contraceptive mentality" to be employed. And I'm not sure that your quote would violate Humanae Vitae as it is taught nowadays.
Papist said:
2. Did I even use the term "open to life" in my argument?
Don't know. Does it matter?: the phrase is part and parcel of the HV apologia.

Papist said:
ialmisry said:
According to St. Clement, during the non-fertile period.
1. Clarify and quote.
Done already, see above.
Papist said:
2. You think the Fathers were all around wrong about birth control, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here.
That I think certain celibate Fathers haven't a clue on married life, I can tell that by reading: what they theorized on I live/d. As to the underlining principles, we have St. John Chrysostom and others, including in many details St. Augustine.

Papist said:
At least our position is much closer to the spirit of the Fathers.
There are Fathers who held marriage in abhorrence, and those who held it in honor. Which one are you claiming, as the HV apologia depends on the former.

Papist said:
Perhaps some of them were wrong on some of the particulars of the matter, but the spirit of what they taught, and their consensus is correct. We are in line with that.
The Spirit that animates St. Jerome is not the one in Humanae Vitae. You have to take your pic.

Papist said:
You are not.
With those who abhorred marriage. No, we are not.

Papist said:
ialmisry said:
How about "orally consumated sex"?
The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively.
The mouth isn't evolved/desinged for speaking. And yet it does.

I'm aware of some views on the matter: the penitentials call for life long penance for oral sex, but only seven years for premeditated murder.

I can't recall if it was Abelard, Anselm or someone else who embraced celibacy because of his abhorrence of the idea that semen and urine passed through the same passage. I guess he wasn't impressed with the design.

Not advocating any preferences. Just stating that the idea that "orally consumated sex" is worse than murder is absurd.

Papist said:
It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally.
According to your "design" theory, it doesn't even get to that: it shouldn't be in the mouth or doing anything at all.

That's why I'm intrigued on how this has been inserted into the HV apologia, eg.
ialmisry said:
The fact of this change, introducing a distinction between ABC and NFP leads to some interesting eisogesis: from the same EWTN site:
Letter of Barnabas

"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11 :29]. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness"' (<Letter of Barnabas> 10:8 [A.D. 74]).
There is no hint of "consumated" (i.e. ejaculation) at all in the passage. "Barnabas" abhors oral sex (amongst other things). Period.  It is being read into the text here to serve the new (for the Vatican) teaching on the matter.
Papist said:
Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.
I'll buy my bread from a baker. He couldn't even figure out conception as the beginning of life, something not only known by nature, but confirmed by revelation.

Papist said:
ialmisry said:
St. Jerome doesn't add that last part.
So?
So where did you get it?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Papist said:
Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law. I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina. In fact, if you read the bible, Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.
Onan's abrupt death seems awfully unfair to poor Onan.  There are millions of teenage boys walking the planet who have not been struck dead for onanism.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law. I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina. In fact, if you read the bible, Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.
Onan's abrupt death seems awfully unfair to poor Onan.   There are millions of teenage boys walking the planet who have not been struck dead for onanism.
Hate to be the one that is the example.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
ialmisry said:
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
Neither does coitus interruptus.
Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law.
Every coitus ends in a withdrawal. That's the nature of things. How soon is too soon?

Papist said:
I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina.
Given the nature of things, not all makes it/stays there.

Then there is the question, given the nature of semen according to Aquinas, of the morality of not delievering it there according to natural law, i.e. forgoing marriage.

He has some interesting views on semen:
Now the soul is infected with the corruption of original sin by the carnal semen....Accordingly the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed, as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): "In whom all have sinned": whereas it is in the bodily semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power of the semen that original sin together with human nature is transmitted to the child...Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin...The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational soul, but disposes the matter for it...The corruption of original sin is nowise caused by God, but by the sin alone of our first parent through carnal generation. And so, since creation implies a relation in the soul to God alone, it cannot be said that the soul is tainted through being created. On the other hand, infusion implies relation both to God infusing and to the flesh into which the soul is infused. And so, with regard to God infusing, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through being infused; but only with regard to the body into which it is infused
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2083.htm

Papist said:
In fact, if you read the bible
I do
Papist said:
Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.
He's come up before:
ialmisry said:
This is alwasy interesting:
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).
This always ignores the mention of why Onan was spilling seed-if it is not important, why is it mentioned? The reference to Deut. is defense of a weak exegesis, if not eisogesis.  The humiiliation was for not marrying the woman.  That is not what Onan did.  He took her with no intention of giving her a son, but using her for sex.
ialmisry said:
I don't claim St. Jerome as the authority on sexual morality (God forbid!), but the apologists for Humanae Vitae claim him.  Honestly requires I cite those Fathers upon which they depend (as HV doesn't cite patristics. It can't).  Since I do not follow HV  (at least in particulars), those who follow HV  are bound to follow him, not I. I'm just citing the record.
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
Do feel free, however, to cite any Church Father on Onan.

Papist said:
ialmisry said:
According to your patristics, it is an outrage against the nature of sex to indulge during the non-fertile periods.
I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason. But if you want to talk Patristics, the Catholic position is MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers
Your problem is that your "patristic position" argues from "reason."

ialmisry said:
Papist said:
NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.
According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.
It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.
During which periods women desire sex more, because they are at their fertile period.  You even can claim some patristics on that, aready quoted:
ialmisry said:
Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.
Our distinction between NFP and artificial contraception is hardly "artificial." Using the natural fertility cycle of a woman to space pregnancies is hardly the same as throwing some latex between a husband and wife or taking a pill.
Or withdrawing a....: he has to eventually.  And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."
As for "MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers," well, if you hold intercourse (including marital, during fertile periods) unclean like St. Jerome, to be tolerated only for the unpleasant duty of begetting children (preferably to redeem their parents by choosing monasticism over marriage), well there is patristic basis for that.  But not for the scheme set up by Humanae Vitae.

Papist said:
than the EO position, which basically ignores them
No, we just don't proof text from the Fathers, on this or any other issue.  We stick with the overwhelming Fathers who exercised the discretion not to interject the opinions/attitudes of celibates (which can be very interesting, even to go into detail on what sexual positions are "moral" and why) into the intimate relations of the married, and held fast to the Apostolic Tradition that marriage is honorable and the marital bed undefiled.  This consensus of discretion is embodied in the marriage rite, and the moral theology.

Papist said:
and then pretends like the EO Church has never changed.
She hasn't. Ever since Christ blessed the marriage at Cana.
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
How about using "ABC" during the non-fertile periods?
What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods?
Combining contraceptive methods is not uncommon in the least.
Papist said:
I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.
I can assure you it is not.
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
It closes one off from being "open to life."
1. NFP is open to life because it should not be used with a contraceptive mentalilty ("I am only going to have x number of kids and that is it").
Although its working does not depend on mentality, it depends on "contraceptive mentality" to be employed. And I'm not sure that your quote would violate Humanae Vitae as it is taught nowadays.
Papist said:
2. Did I even use the term "open to life" in my argument?
Don't know. Does it matter?: the phrase is part and parcel of the HV apologia.

Papist said:
ialmisry said:
According to St. Clement, during the non-fertile period.
1. Clarify and quote.
Done already, see above.
Papist said:
2. You think the Fathers were all around wrong about birth control, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here.
That I think certain celibate Fathers haven't a clue on married life, I can tell that by reading: what they theorized on I live/d. As to the underlining principles, we have St. John Chrysostom and others, including in many details St. Augustine.

Papist said:
At least our position is much closer to the spirit of the Fathers.
There are Fathers who held marriage in abhorrence, and those who held it in honor. Which one are you claiming, as the HV apologia depends on the former.

Papist said:
Perhaps some of them were wrong on some of the particulars of the matter, but the spirit of what they taught, and their consensus is correct. We are in line with that.
The Spirit that animates St. Jerome is not the one in Humanae Vitae. You have to take your pic.

Papist said:
You are not.
With those who abhorred marriage. No, we are not.

Papist said:
ialmisry said:
How about "orally consumated sex"?
The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively.
The mouth isn't evolved/desinged for speaking. And yet it does.

I'm aware of some views on the matter: the penitentials call for life long penance for oral sex, but only seven years for premeditated murder.

I can't recall if it was Abelard, Anselm or someone else who embraced celibacy because of his abhorrence of the idea that semen and urine passed through the same passage. I guess he wasn't impressed with the design.

Not advocating any preferences. Just stating that the idea that "orally consumated sex" is worse than murder is absurd.

Papist said:
It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally.
According to your "design" theory, it doesn't even get to that: it shouldn't be in the mouth or doing anything at all.

That's why I'm intrigued on how this has been inserted into the HV apologia, eg.
ialmisry said:
The fact of this change, introducing a distinction between ABC and NFP leads to some interesting eisogesis: from the same EWTN site:
Letter of Barnabas

"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11 :29]. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness"' (<Letter of Barnabas> 10:8 [A.D. 74]).
There is no hint of "consumated" (i.e. ejaculation) at all in the passage. "Barnabas" abhors oral sex (amongst other things). Period.  It is being read into the text here to serve the new (for the Vatican) teaching on the matter.
Papist said:
Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.
I'll buy my bread from a baker. He couldn't even figure out conception as the beginning of life, something not only known by nature, but confirmed by revelation.

Papist said:
ialmisry said:
St. Jerome doesn't add that last part.
So?
So where did you get it?
I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.
 

ICXCNIKA

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Madison, WI
I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.
[/quote]

I for one do not find his points absurd nor his arguments sophomoric. It appears to me that he has easily defeated the weak arguments put forward by the Romans on this topic.
 
Top