The Catholic Route to Birth Control

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ICXCNIKA said:
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.
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.
[/quote]

I am so glad you like what he's doing. 

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas." 

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?

M.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
ICXCNIKA said:
Papist said:
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.
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.
I am so glad you like what he's doing. 

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas." 

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?
IIRC, Papist brought up Aquinas and his views on semen.  He didn't quote him, but I did (but just on the issue of the transmission of original sin). Maybe he can give you more info on that subject, as you distrust me.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ICXCNIKA said:
Papist said:
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.
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.
I am so glad you like what he's doing. 

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas." 

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?
IIRC, Papist brought up Aquinas and his views on semen.  He didn't quote him, but I did (but just on the issue of the transmission of original sin). Maybe he can give you more info on that subject, as you distrust me.
It's not a matter of distrusting you.  Interacting with you is like dealing poker hands and having you grab all the cards and throw them up in the air and then blaming us because we won't take your bets.

In fact I trust you implicitly to do what you do each and every time, precisely the same way.

M.

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ICXCNIKA said:
Papist said:
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.
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.
I am so glad you like what he's doing. 

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas." 

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?
IIRC, Papist brought up Aquinas and his views on semen.  He didn't quote him, but I did (but just on the issue of the transmission of original sin). Maybe he can give you more info on that subject, as you distrust me.
It's not a matter of distrusting you.  Interacting with you is like dealing poker hands and having you grab all the cards and throw them up in the air and then blaming us because we won't take your bets.

In fact I trust you implicitly to do what you do each and every time, precisely the same way.

M.
Don't play poker, so can't really respond.  Except that the ace of spades is not the ace of hearts. even I know that, and can't be told otherwise.
 

ICXCNIKA

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Madison, WI
elijahmaria said:
ICXCNIKA said:
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.
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.
I am so glad you like what he's doing.  

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas."  

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?

M.
[/quote]

Mary,

I would love to help you out. Unfortunately I can't because it would go against the Laws of Nature.  ;)
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ICXCNIKA said:
Papist said:
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.
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.
I am so glad you like what he's doing. 

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas." 

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?
IIRC, Papist brought up Aquinas and his views on semen.  He didn't quote him, but I did (but just on the issue of the transmission of original sin). Maybe he can give you more info on that subject, as you distrust me.
It's not a matter of distrusting you.  Interacting with you is like dealing poker hands and having you grab all the cards and throw them up in the air and then blaming us because we won't take your bets.

In fact I trust you implicitly to do what you do each and every time, precisely the same way.

M.
Don't play poker, so can't really respond.  Except that the ace of spades is not the ace of hearts. even I know that, and can't be told otherwise.
You don't really know Catholic theology either and you surely don't understand what the Catholic Church teaches in most cases where I've seen your objections....but you don't seem to let that stop you.

M.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Given the apologists equating eunuchs with birth control, I thought this, from St. Justin Martyr's Apology, interesting:
Chapter 29. Continence of Christians
And again [we fear to expose children], lest some of them be not picked up, but die, and we become murderers. But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently. And that you may understand that promiscuous intercourse is not one of our mysteries, one of our number a short time ago presented to Felix the governor in Alexandria a petition, craving that permission might be given to a surgeon to make him an eunuch. For the surgeons there said that they were forbidden to do this without the permission of the governor. And when Felix absolutely refused to sign such a permission, the youth remained single, and was satisfied with his own approving conscience, and the approval of those who thought as he did.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
It interesting that no disapproval is shown by the Christians: it is the pagan Felix who stops the Christian youth from obtaining castration.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Using New Advent (an excellent site, although not to be used without discernment, of course), I came across this tidbit that reminded of this thread:

Do you know why Catholics don’t care about same-sex marriage?
“Polls conducted between July 21 and Sept. 6 found that a plurality of Catholics -- 46 percent to 42 percent -- approved of allowing gays and lesbians to marry,” reports Catholic News Service. Sacramento Bishop Jaime Soto provided a clue as to why so many Catholics aren’t opposed to same sex marriage in a column earlier this month. Excerpt (emphases mine):Another area where Catholics should do more reflection and cultivate new habits is in the sexual practice of marriage. One habit that has taken hold of many marriages is the use of artificial means of contraception. The prevalence of the practice in and outside of the Catholic community has made contraception the unquestioned default mode of marriage. As a consequence, sexuality and relationships are misunderstood and misused; and their true purpose is misplaced.
These comments are not just about the “pill” or other forms of contraceptives. This is more about the habit of using artificial means. The habit has shaped the hearts and minds of many, especially the young. Marriage is no longer understood as the covenant of love between a man and a woman that creates life, because procreation is no longer associated with sexual intercourse. In this new social situation, many shrug their shoulders and wonder why a sexual relationship between any two people who care for each other cannot be called a marriage.
http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2010/10/do-you-know-why-catholics-dont-care.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheCatholicKeyBlog+%28The+Catholic+Key+Blog%29

Since I recall being accused here of reducing marriage to just sex, particularly since I questioned any "virgin marriage," if a same sex couple had a "virgin marriage" would that be fine then?

I wonder what effect the annullment nonsense, particularly at the rate the corban is dispensed, has had on views marriage. And the scandals-not the acts themselves, bad enough, but the coverups-and they wonder why such things, written by a celibate of course, are not taken seriously.

The contraceptive mentality is a problem, but the artificial division between ABC and NFP (so called) doesn't identify it.

I remember reading "On Human Nature" in which he Wilson touches on an evolutionary argument for the usefulness of homosexuality, but then states he doesn't want to push it lest the science change and imperil homosexuals.  Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
The contraceptive mentality is a problem, but the artificial division between ABC and NFP (so called) doesn't identify it.
There is a clear difference in thinking between those who make use of various methods of artificial contraception and those who exercise the continence necessary to space children according to the needs of the family.

Mary
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
I was reminded of this by this post
Does Orthodoxy allow contraception or not?

I'd be interested in reactions, especially from Orthodox believers, to the online article of the above title. At the very least, there appears to have been some backtracking in Orthodoxy on the topic. And as usual, there is the problem that nobody seems to speak for Orthodoxy as such.
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/

Interesting how we get a papal bull, citing SS Peter and Paul and hellfire ex cathedra and all, in Unam Sanctam, and yet we are told it does not speak for the Vatican. ::)
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
I was reminded of this by this post
Does Orthodoxy allow contraception or not?

I'd be interested in reactions, especially from Orthodox believers, to the online article of the above title. At the very least, there appears to have been some backtracking in Orthodoxy on the topic. And as usual, there is the problem that nobody seems to speak for Orthodoxy as such.
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/

Interesting how we get a papal bull, citing SS Peter and Paul and hellfire ex cathedra and all, in Unam Sanctam, and yet we are told it does not speak for the Vatican. ::)
That's not the apologetic for that Apostolic document at all.  If that is all you've ever heard then you've been listening in the wrong key-hole.  I wouldn't think you'd be interested.

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.
Anybody familiar with the modern Roman Catholic teaching on birth control knows that it is an innovation.

It contradicts the patristic declaration that no sexual act is permitted between spouses unless

1.  there is the intention to conceive
2.  there is the physical possibility to conceive.

As for what is called Natural Family Planning, such things are condemned as late as 1930 by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii as a grave sin.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

 

elijahmaria

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

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.
Anybody familiar with the modern Roman Catholic teaching on birth control knows that it is an innovation.

It contradicts the patristic declaration that no sexual act is permitted between spouses unless

1.  there is the intention to conceive
2.  there is the physical possibility to conceive.

As for what is called Natural Family Planning, such things are condemned as late as 1930 by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii as a grave sin.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
Yes.  The Catholic Church recognized the unitive aspect of conjugal love, as per St. John Chrysostom.  That is hardly an innovation.

I expect I know more conservative Orthodox priests because I am told that Orthodoxy used to teach against all forms of artificial birth control.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
I was reminded of this by this post
Does Orthodoxy allow contraception or not?

I'd be interested in reactions, especially from Orthodox believers, to the online article of the above title. At the very least, there appears to have been some backtracking in Orthodoxy on the topic. And as usual, there is the problem that nobody seems to speak for Orthodoxy as such.
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/

Interesting how we get a papal bull, citing SS Peter and Paul and hellfire ex cathedra and all, in Unam Sanctam, and yet we are told it does not speak for the Vatican. ::)
That's not the apologetic for that Apostolic document at all.   If that is all you've ever heard then you've been listening in the wrong key-hole.  I wouldn't think you'd be interested.

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.
No doubt those same "Orthodox" who tell you we are in the same church.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.
Anybody familiar with the modern Roman Catholic teaching on birth control knows that it is an innovation.

It contradicts the patristic declaration that no sexual act is permitted between spouses unless

1.  there is the intention to conceive
2.  there is the physical possibility to conceive.

As for what is called Natural Family Planning, such things are condemned as late as 1930 by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii as a grave sin.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
Yes.  The Catholic Church recognized the unitive aspect of conjugal love, as per St. John Chrysostom.  That is hardly an innovation.
No, it's not. But it is new to the Vatican, which is why he (or any father for that matter) is not cited in Humanae Vitae.

I expect I know more conservative Orthodox priests because I am told that Orthodoxy used to teach against all forms of artificial birth control.
Told by those same "more conservative Orthodox priests" who tell you we are in the same church?

The ABC/NFP division is a recent innovation, one introduced by the Vatican in the 19th century.  The division abortifacient/non-abortifacient of old was determinative.  Most, however, left the details to pastoral counseling rather than dogmatic polemics, which, SUPRISE! is the same Orthodox attittude of the Catholic Church today.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.
Anybody familiar with the modern Roman Catholic teaching on birth control knows that it is an innovation.

It contradicts the patristic declaration that no sexual act is permitted between spouses unless

1.  there is the intention to conceive
2.  there is the physical possibility to conceive.

As for what is called Natural Family Planning, such things are condemned as late as 1930 by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii as a grave sin.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
6. Yet although matrimony is of its very nature of divine institution, the human will, too, enters into it and performs a most noble part. For each individual marriage, inasmuch as it is a conjugal union of a particular man and woman, arises only from the free consent of each of the spouses; and this free act of the will, by which each party hands over and accepts those rights proper to the state of marriage,[4] is so necessary to constitute true marriage that it cannot be supplied by any human power.[5] This freedom, however, regards only the question whether the contracting parties really wish to enter upon matrimony or to marry this particular person; but the nature of matrimony is entirely independent of the free will of man, so that if one has once contracted matrimony he is thereby subject to its divinely made laws and its essential properties. For the Angelic Doctor, writing on conjugal honor and on the offspring which is the fruit of marriage, says: "These things are so contained in matrimony by the marriage pact itself that, if anything to the contrary were expressed in the consent which makes the marriage, it would not be a true marriage."[6
Of course, unless the corban factory a/k/a the Marriage Tribunal, says otherwise.

This is interesting
14. For although Christian spouses even if sanctified themselves cannot transmit sanctification to their progeny, nay, although the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity, nevertheless, they share to some extent in the blessings of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is theirs to offer their offspring to the Church in order that by this most fruitful Mother of the children of God they may be regenerated through the laver of Baptism unto supernatural justice and finally be made living members of Christ, partakers of immortal life, and heirs of that eternal glory to which we all aspire from our inmost heart.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.
Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.

M.
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,735
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.
Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.
What happened to Galileo (who lived when the concept of Orthodox Churches forcibly commemorating the Pope of Rome was born) when he revealed the Truth of Natural Law?  Sure, Rome corrected Her errant ways regarding Galileo ... Nearly 3+ Centuries after the fact.

elijahmaria said:
I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.
Orthodoxy existed before the Renaissance / Enlightenment (which inspired Galileo to reveal the Truth of Natural Law only to be imprisoned and have his works burned).
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
SolEX01 said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.
Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.
What happened to Galileo (who lived when the concept of Orthodox Churches forcibly commemorating the Pope of Rome was born) when he revealed the Truth of Natural Law?  Sure, Rome corrected Her errant ways regarding Galileo ... Nearly 3+ Centuries after the fact.

elijahmaria said:
I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.
Orthodoxy existed before the Renaissance / Enlightenment (which inspired Galileo to reveal the Truth of Natural Law only to be imprisoned and have his works burned).
Copernicus did a better job of revealing natural law long before Galileo and the Church did not censure him.  So there must be something you are leaving out of this old story: something that most dissenting Catholics leave out as well.

Nothing like good old historical revision to fill the poison ink well with the bitters of half truth.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.
Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.
This is one of my favorite exaples of this:
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_contraception.htm
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=1703.30;wap2
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/contraception.htm
etc. Many drink from that same quote trough, and they all have the same generous use of the square brackets to try to hide the innovation of the Roman Penitentiary in 1853 on allowing the rhythm method, NFP so called.

St. John says
Let us then shake off this evil sleep, for if the day find us sleeping, a deathless death will succeed, and before that day we shall be open to the attacks of all the enemies that are of this world, both men and devils: and if they be minded to undo us, there is nobody to hinder them. For if there were many watching, then the danger would not be so great; since however, one perhaps there is, or two, who have lighted a candle, and would be as it were watching in the depth of night, while men were sleeping; therefore now we have need of much sleeplessness, much guardedness, to prevent our falling into the most irremediable evils. Does it not now seem to be broad daylight? Do we not think that all men are awake and sober? Yet still (and perhaps you will smile at what I say, still say it I will) we seem all of us like men sleeping and snoring in the depth of night. And if indeed an incorporeal being could be seen, I would show you how most men are snoring, and the devil breaking through walls, and butchering us as we lie, and stealing away the goods within, doing everything fearlessly, as if in profound darkness. Or rather, even if it be impossible to see this with our eyes, let us sketch it out in words, and consider how many have been weighed down by evil desires, how many held down by the sore evil of wantonness, and have quenched the light of the Spirit. Hence it comes that they see one thing instead of another, hear one thing instead of another, and take no notice of any of the things here told them. Or if I am mistaken in saying so, and you are awake, tell me what has been doing here this day, if you have not been hearing this as a dream. I am indeed aware that some can tell me (and I do not mean this of all); but do thou who comest under what has been said, who hast come here to no purpose, tell me what Prophet, what Apostle has been discoursing to us today? And on what subjects? And you would not have it in your power to tell me. For you have been talking a great deal here, just as in a dream, without hearing the realities. And this I would have said to the women too, as there is a great deal of sleeping among them. And would it were sleep! For he that is asleep says nothing either good or bad. But he that is awake as you are puts forth many a word even for mischief on his own head, telling his interest, casting up his creditor accounts, calling to memory some barefaced bargaining, planting the thorns thick in his own soul, and not letting the seed make even ever so little advance. But rouse yourself, and pull these thorns up by the roots, and shake the drunkenness off: for this is the cause of the sleep. But by drunkenness I mean, not that from wine only, but from worldly thoughts, and with them that from wine also. (See p. 443.) And this advice I am giving not to the rich only, but the poor too, and chiefly those that club together for social parties. For this is not really indulgence or relaxation, but punishment and vengeance. For indulgence lies not in speaking filthy things, but in talking solemnly, in being filled, not being ready to burst. But if you think this is pleasure, show me the pleasure by the evening! You can not! And hitherto I say nothing of the mischiefs it leads to, but at present have only been speaking to you of the pleasure that withers away so quickly. For the party is no sooner broken up, than all that went for mirth is flown away. But when I come to mention the spewing, and the headaches, and the numberless disorders, and the soul's captivity, what have you to say to all this? Have we any business, because we are poor, to behave ourselves unseemly too? And in saying this I do not forbid your meeting together, or taking your suppers at a common table, but to prevent your behaving unseemly, and as wishing indulgence to be really indulgence, and not a punishment, nor a vengeance, or drunkenness and revelling. Let the Gentiles (ἑ λληνες) see that Christians know best how to indulge, and to indulge in an orderly way. For it says, Rejoice in the Lord with trembling. Psalm 2:11 But how then can one rejoice? Why, by saying hymns, making prayers, introducing psalms in the place of those low songs. Thus will Christ also be at our table, and will fill the whole feast with blessing, when you pray, when you sing spiritual songs, when you invite the poor to partake of what is set before you, when you set much orderliness and temperance over the feast. So you will make the party a Church, by hymning, in the room of ill-timed shouts and cheers, the Master of all things. And tell me not, that another custom has come to prevail, but correct what is thus amiss. For whether you eat, it says, or whether ye drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31 For from banquets of that sort you have evil desires, and impurities, and wives come to be in disrepute, and harlots in honor among you. Hence come the upsetting of families and evils unnumbered, and all things are turned upside down, and you have left the pure fountain, and run to the conduit of mire. For that an harlot's body is mire, I do not enquire of any one else but of your own self that wallowest in the mire, if you dost not feel ashamed of yourself, if you dost not think yourself unclean after the sin is over. Wherefore I beseech you flee fornication, and the mother of it, drunkenness. Why sow where reaping is impossible, or rather even if you dost reap, the fruit brings you great shame? For even if a child be born, it at once disgraces yourself, and has itself had injustice done it in being born through you illegitimate and base. And if you leave it never so much money, both the son of an harlot, and that of a servant-maid, is disreputable at home, disreputable in the city, disreputable in a court of law: disreputable too will you be also, both in your lifetime, and when dead. For if you have departed even, the memorials of your unseemliness abide. Why then bring disgrace upon all these? Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon your head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is yours. Hence too come idolatries, since many, with a view to become acceptable, devise incantations, and libations, and love-potions, and countless other plans. Yet still after such great unseemliness, after slaughters, after idolatries, the thing seems to many to belong to things indifferent, aye, and to many that have wives too. Whence the mingle (φορυτὸς) of mischief is the greater. For sorceries are applied not to the womb that is prostituted, but to the injured wife, and there are plottings without number, and invocations of devils, and necromancies, and daily wars, and truceless fightings, and home-cherished jealousies. Wherefore also Paul, after saying, not in chamberings and wantonness, proceeds, not in strife and envying, as knowing the wars that result therefrom; the upsetting of families, the wrongs done to legitimate children, the other ills unnumbered. That we may then escape from all these, let us put on Christ, and be with Him continually. For this is what putting Him on is; never being without Him, having Him evermore visible in us, through our sanctification, through our moderation. So we say of friends, such an one is wrapped up (ἐ νεδύσατο) in such another, meaning their great love, and keeping together incessantly. For he that is wrapped up in anything, seems to be that which he is wrapped in. Let then Christ be seen in every part of us. And how is He to be seen? If you do His deeds. And what did He do? The Son of Man, He says, has not where to lay His head. Luke 9:58 This do thou also aim after. He needed the use of food, and He fared upon barley loaves. He had occasion to travel, and there were no horses or beast of burden anywhere, but He walked so far as even to be weary. He had need of sleep, and He lay asleep upon the pillow in the fore (πρύμνῃ, here πρώρας) part of the ship. Mark 4:38 There was occasion for sitting down to meat, and He bade them lie down upon the grass. And His garments were cheap; and often He stayed alone, with no train after Him. And what He did on the Cross, and what amidst the insults, and all, in a word, that He did, do thou learn by heart (καταμαθὼν) and imitate. And so will you have put on Christ, if you make no provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof. For the thing has no real pleasure, since these lusts gender again others more keen, and you will never find satisfaction, but wilt only make you one great torment. For as one who is in a continual thirst, even if he have ten thousand fountains hard by him, gets no good from this, as he is not able to extinguish the disorder, so is he that lives continually in lusts. But if you keep to what is necessary, you will never come to have this fear, but all those things will go away, as well drunkenness as wantonness. Eat then only so much as to break your hunger, have only so much upon you as to be sheltered, and do not curiously deck your flesh with clothing, lest you ruin it. For you will make it more delicate, and wilt do injury to its healthfulness, by unnerving it with so much softness. That you may have it then a meet vehicle for the soul, that the helmsman may be securely seated over the rudder, and the soldier handle his arms with ease, you must make all parts to be fitly framed together. For it is not the having much, but requiring little, that keeps us from being injured. For the one man is afraid even if he is not wronged: this other, even if he be wronged, is in better case than those that have not been wronged, and even for this very thing is in the better spirits. Let the object of our search be then, not how we can keep any one from using us spitefully, but how even if he wish to do it, he may be without the power. And this there is no other source whence to obtain, save by keeping to necessaries, and not coveting anything more. For in this way we shall be able to enjoy ourselves here, and shall attain to the good things to come, by the grace and love toward man, etc.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.xxvi.html

It's not a treastise on natural law, despite what the insertion of square brackets "argues."

I'll be posting a thread, Lord willing, about the Vatican's dependence on natural law as revelation fails to support its views.
 
Top