• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

The Catholic Route to Birth Control

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
... as its authority on the existence of natural law, the basis of HV.
The theological foundation of Humanae Vitae is Caritas!

Caritas is the foundation of the Catholic understanding of marriage and family which is expressed most descriptively and simply as SELFLESS-LOVE...or the love of  Christ for all creation, and especially for his adopted brothers and sisters through Baptism in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit allowing us to be adopted sons and daughters of the Father,  in, from and through Christ.

Tear out any of the human supports of Caritas and all of creation groans under the weight of that evil.
Care to quote HV? As I can (and have) quoted its dependence and origin in "natural law."
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
... as its authority on the existence of natural law, the basis of HV.
The theological foundation of Humanae Vitae is Caritas!

Caritas is the foundation of the Catholic understanding of marriage and family which is expressed most descriptively and simply as SELFLESS-LOVE...or the love of  Christ for all creation, and especially for his adopted brothers and sisters through Baptism in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit allowing us to be adopted sons and daughters of the Father,  in, from and through Christ.

Tear out any of the human supports of Caritas and all of creation groans under the weight of that evil.
Care to quote HV? As I can (and have) quoted its dependence and origin in "natural law."
Oh <snap>...I forgot...you only do literal!!
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
... as its authority on the existence of natural law, the basis of HV.
The theological foundation of Humanae Vitae is Caritas!

Caritas is the foundation of the Catholic understanding of marriage and family which is expressed most descriptively and simply as SELFLESS-LOVE...or the love of  Christ for all creation, and especially for his adopted brothers and sisters through Baptism in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit allowing us to be adopted sons and daughters of the Father,  in, from and through Christ.

Tear out any of the human supports of Caritas and all of creation groans under the weight of that evil.
The Foundation of Humanae Vitae:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

This love is first of all fully human, that is to say, of the senses and of the spirit at the same time. It is not, then, a simple transport of instinct and sentiment, but also, and principally, an act of the free will, intended to endure and to grow by means of the joys and sorrows of daily life, in such a way that husband and wife become one only heart and one only soul, and together attain their human perfection.

Then, this love is total, that is to say, it is a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations. Whoever truly loves his marriage partner loves not only for what he receives, but for the partner's self, rejoicing that he can enrich his partner with the gift of himself.

Again, this love is faithful and exclusive until death. Thus in fact do bride and groom conceive it to be on the day when they freely and in full awareness assume the duty of the marriage bond. A fidelity, this, which can sometimes be difficult, but is always possible, always noble and meritorious, as no one can deny. The example of so many married persons down through the centuries shows, not only that fidelity is according to the nature of marriage, but also that it is a source of profound and lasting happiness.

And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."8
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
... as its authority on the existence of natural law, the basis of HV.
The theological foundation of Humanae Vitae is Caritas!

Caritas is the foundation of the Catholic understanding of marriage and family which is expressed most descriptively and simply as SELFLESS-LOVE...or the love of  Christ for all creation, and especially for his adopted brothers and sisters through Baptism in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit allowing us to be adopted sons and daughters of the Father,  in, from and through Christ.

Tear out any of the human supports of Caritas and all of creation groans under the weight of that evil.
Care to quote HV? As I can (and have) quoted its dependence and origin in "natural law."
Oh <snap>...I forgot...you only do literal!!
I prefer something more authoritative than personal musings.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
... as its authority on the existence of natural law, the basis of HV.
The theological foundation of Humanae Vitae is Caritas!

Caritas is the foundation of the Catholic understanding of marriage and family which is expressed most descriptively and simply as SELFLESS-LOVE...or the love of  Christ for all creation, and especially for his adopted brothers and sisters through Baptism in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit allowing us to be adopted sons and daughters of the Father,  in, from and through Christ.

Tear out any of the human supports of Caritas and all of creation groans under the weight of that evil.
The Foundation of Humanae Vitae:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

This love is first of all fully human, that is to say, of the senses and of the spirit at the same time. It is not, then, a simple transport of instinct and sentiment, but also, and principally, an act of the free will, intended to endure and to grow by means of the joys and sorrows of daily life, in such a way that husband and wife become one only heart and one only soul, and together attain their human perfection.

Then, this love is total, that is to say, it is a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations. Whoever truly loves his marriage partner loves not only for what he receives, but for the partner's self, rejoicing that he can enrich his partner with the gift of himself.

Again, this love is faithful and exclusive until death. Thus in fact do bride and groom conceive it to be on the day when they freely and in full awareness assume the duty of the marriage bond. A fidelity, this, which can sometimes be difficult, but is always possible, always noble and meritorious, as no one can deny. The example of so many married persons down through the centuries shows, not only that fidelity is according to the nature of marriage, but also that it is a source of profound and lasting happiness.

And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."8
had your supreme pontiff left it at that, you might have a point. He, however, went on:
These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy," and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
... as its authority on the existence of natural law, the basis of HV.
The theological foundation of Humanae Vitae is Caritas!

Caritas is the foundation of the Catholic understanding of marriage and family which is expressed most descriptively and simply as SELFLESS-LOVE...or the love of  Christ for all creation, and especially for his adopted brothers and sisters through Baptism in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit allowing us to be adopted sons and daughters of the Father,  in, from and through Christ.

Tear out any of the human supports of Caritas and all of creation groans under the weight of that evil.
The Foundation of Humanae Vitae:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

This love is first of all fully human, that is to say, of the senses and of the spirit at the same time. It is not, then, a simple transport of instinct and sentiment, but also, and principally, an act of the free will, intended to endure and to grow by means of the joys and sorrows of daily life, in such a way that husband and wife become one only heart and one only soul, and together attain their human perfection.

Then, this love is total, that is to say, it is a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations. Whoever truly loves his marriage partner loves not only for what he receives, but for the partner's self, rejoicing that he can enrich his partner with the gift of himself.

Again, this love is faithful and exclusive until death. Thus in fact do bride and groom conceive it to be on the day when they freely and in full awareness assume the duty of the marriage bond. A fidelity, this, which can sometimes be difficult, but is always possible, always noble and meritorious, as no one can deny. The example of so many married persons down through the centuries shows, not only that fidelity is according to the nature of marriage, but also that it is a source of profound and lasting happiness.

And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."8
had your supreme pontiff left it at that, you might have a point. He, however, went on:
These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy," and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.
The "natural law" in the understanding of the Church is nothing more than God's Providence in Creation...all driven by Caritas.

I don't see the conflict here...but then again I am not the antagonist.

So carry on and wave your hands some more... :laugh:
 

Robb

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey and Kansas
It was always my understanding from study that the RCC (Like everyone who existed before the Mid 19Th century) Held that the infusion of the soul into the fetus happened in the fourth month of pregnancy when the child began to move around in the mothers womb.  This action was known as "Quickening" and was considered the officially start of a women's pregnancy.  This was before the discovery of sperm as well as an understanding of the workings of conception and pregnancy due to the invention of the microscope. 

So did the RCC and every other religion condone abortion before the fourth month of pregnancy before the mid 19Th century?  I know that certain Catholic theologians (Including former NY gov. Mario Cumeo) Point out the facts I mentioned above as reason for acceptance of abortion in the first three months of pregnancy by Catholics (Who wish the teaching changed).  I don't hold to that, but was this what the RCC taught centuries ago?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Robb said:
It was always my understanding from study that the RCC (Like everyone who existed before the Mid 19Th century) Held that the infusion of the soul into the fetus happened in the fourth month of pregnancy when the child began to move around in the mothers womb.  This action was known as "Quickening" and was considered the officially start of a women's pregnancy.  This was before the discovery of sperm as well as an understanding of the workings of conception and pregnancy due to the invention of the microscope. 

So did the RCC and every other religion condone abortion before the fourth month of pregnancy before the mid 19Th century?  I know that certain Catholic theologians (Including former NY gov. Mario Cumeo) Point out the facts I mentioned above as reason for acceptance of abortion in the first three months of pregnancy by Catholics (Who wish the teaching changed).  I don't hold to that, but was this what the RCC taught centuries ago?
Yes, there were such teachings among anyone under the shadow of Scholasticism and leaning on "natural law."  We Orthodox, however, escaped most of that and have always held that the human person begins at conception, based on the Church honoring the conceptions of Christ, His mother and St. John the Baptist.

Such is the problem with basing morality on the present state of science, as Thomism (and following the "angelic doctor" the Vatican) does, is that knowledge changes.  Go with revelation, the sure thing.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
The "natural law" in the understanding of the Church is nothing more than God's Providence in Creation...all driven by Caritas.
yes, sort of like how Descartes using "cogito ergo sum" to pay lip service to God, and then go dream up whatever he wants.

The Vatican's understanding is all driven by scholasticism, nothing more than pagan philosophy with a Christian veneer.

elijahmaria said:
I don't see the conflict here
I'm sure you don't.

elijahmaria said:
...but then again I am not the antagonist.
and you've be hitting the Kool-Aid.

elijahmaria said:
So carry on and wave your hands some more... :laugh:
bye-bye  :laugh:
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Robb said:
So did the RCC and every other religion condone abortion before the fourth month of pregnancy before the mid 19Th century?  I know that certain Catholic theologians (Including former NY gov. Mario Cumeo) Point out the facts I mentioned above as reason for acceptance of abortion in the first three months of pregnancy by Catholics (Who wish the teaching changed).  I don't hold to that, but was this what the RCC taught centuries ago?
Dear Robb,

Please see message 12 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28966.msg457934.html#msg457934

"The Roman Catholic Church and Abortion: An Historical Perspective"

"The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially eliminated the Catholic distinction between an animated and a nonanimated fetus and required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy."



 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Robb said:
It was always my understanding from study that the RCC (Like everyone who existed before the Mid 19Th century) Held that the infusion of the soul into the fetus happened in the fourth month of pregnancy when the child began to move around in the mothers womb.  This action was known as "Quickening" and was considered the officially start of a women's pregnancy.  This was before the discovery of sperm as well as an understanding of the workings of conception and pregnancy due to the invention of the microscope. 

So did the RCC and every other religion condone abortion before the fourth month of pregnancy before the mid 19Th century?  I know that certain Catholic theologians (Including former NY gov. Mario Cumeo) Point out the facts I mentioned above as reason for acceptance of abortion in the first three months of pregnancy by Catholics (Who wish the teaching changed).  I don't hold to that, but was this what the RCC taught centuries ago?
No.  This was a minority view among monk-scholars.  Also it is more nuanced than it appears in most Internet sources.  Clearly the soul is necessary to support life from the moment of conception and that was not argued against by anyone in those early centuries.  Somewhere around here I have a text on the history of our understanding of body, intellect and soul...

At any rate it is not quite so simple as most think or express it.

If you google "immortal soul" you might find more.  I don't know.  It's been a while.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
Robb said:
It was always my understanding from study that the RCC (Like everyone who existed before the Mid 19Th century) Held that the infusion of the soul into the fetus happened in the fourth month of pregnancy when the child began to move around in the mothers womb.  This action was known as "Quickening" and was considered the officially start of a women's pregnancy.  This was before the discovery of sperm as well as an understanding of the workings of conception and pregnancy due to the invention of the microscope. 

So did the RCC and every other religion condone abortion before the fourth month of pregnancy before the mid 19Th century?  I know that certain Catholic theologians (Including former NY gov. Mario Cumeo) Point out the facts I mentioned above as reason for acceptance of abortion in the first three months of pregnancy by Catholics (Who wish the teaching changed).  I don't hold to that, but was this what the RCC taught centuries ago?
Yes, there were such teachings among anyone under the shadow of Scholasticism and leaning on "natural law."  We Orthodox, however, escaped most of that and have always held that the human person begins at conception, based on the Church honoring the conceptions of Christ, His mother and St. John the Baptist.

Such is the problem with basing morality on the present state of science, as Thomism (and following the "angelic doctor" the Vatican) does, is that knowledge changes.  Go with revelation, the sure thing.
This is not something one should follow or emulate.  I don't have time to do the work right now but the history of the understanding of the immortal soul is far more complex that our resident Wiki-Professor is proclaiming here.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
The "natural law" in the understanding of the Church is nothing more than God's Providence in Creation...all driven by Caritas.
yes, sort of like how Descartes using "cogito ergo sum" to pay lip service to God, and then go dream up whatever he wants.

The Vatican's understanding is all driven by scholasticism, nothing more than pagan philosophy with a Christian veneer.
Only the very most ignorant will follow you in this.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
Robb said:
It was always my understanding from study that the RCC (Like everyone who existed before the Mid 19Th century) Held that the infusion of the soul into the fetus happened in the fourth month of pregnancy when the child began to move around in the mothers womb.  This action was known as "Quickening" and was considered the officially start of a women's pregnancy.  This was before the discovery of sperm as well as an understanding of the workings of conception and pregnancy due to the invention of the microscope. 

So did the RCC and every other religion condone abortion before the fourth month of pregnancy before the mid 19Th century?  I know that certain Catholic theologians (Including former NY gov. Mario Cumeo) Point out the facts I mentioned above as reason for acceptance of abortion in the first three months of pregnancy by Catholics (Who wish the teaching changed).  I don't hold to that, but was this what the RCC taught centuries ago?
Yes, there were such teachings among anyone under the shadow of Scholasticism and leaning on "natural law."  We Orthodox, however, escaped most of that and have always held that the human person begins at conception, based on the Church honoring the conceptions of Christ, His mother and St. John the Baptist.

Such is the problem with basing morality on the present state of science, as Thomism (and following the "angelic doctor" the Vatican) does, is that knowledge changes.  Go with revelation, the sure thing.
This is not something one should follow or emulate.  I don't have time to do the work right now but the history of the understanding of the immortal soul is far more complex that our resident Wiki-Professor is proclaiming here.
LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

It is your "magisterium" approved material which, to your dismay, I provide in abundance, that shouldn't be followed or emulated.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.
Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it... ;)
Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.
My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.
Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it... ;)
Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.
My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.
so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Just a stray thought I thought I would put here, in opposition to the determinism of the Scholastics on marriage: persons do not marry in order to have children, but children result from persons marrying.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.
Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it... ;)
Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.
My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.
so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.
Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.
Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it... ;)
Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.
My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.
so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.
Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.
and the Muslims have birth control.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.
Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it... ;)
Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.
My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.
so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.
Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.
and the Muslims have birth control.
As time passes, and Muslims become more familiar with the western methods of ABC, the fertility rate for Muslims does appear to be going down, but still it is higher than the Christian fertility rate. The fertility rate for R Catholics appears to be slightly higher than that for Orthodox Christians in Greece, but not by much.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.
Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it... ;)
Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.
My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.
so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.
Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.
and the Muslims have birth control.
As time passes, and Muslims become more familiar with the western methods of ABC, the fertility rate for Muslims does appear to be going down, but still it is higher than the Christian fertility rate. The fertility rate for R Catholics appears to be slightly higher than that for Orthodox Christians in Greece, but not by much.
The Muslims are quite familiar with all methods of birth control, including what is called "Natural Family Planning": the Islamic states have been pushing birth control since the 50's, the large Muslim population in the former USSR also being exposed, like the Muslims in India.  What they don't have is the Western secular atttitude towards children and family life.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.
Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it... ;)
Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.
My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.
so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.
Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.
and the Muslims have birth control.
As time passes, and Muslims become more familiar with the western methods of ABC, the fertility rate for Muslims does appear to be going down, but still it is higher than the Christian fertility rate. The fertility rate for R Catholics appears to be slightly higher than that for Orthodox Christians in Greece, but not by much.
The Muslims are quite familiar with all methods of birth control, including what is called "Natural Family Planning": the Islamic states have been pushing birth control since the 50's, the large Muslim population in the former USSR also being exposed, like the Muslims in India.  What they don't have is the Western secular atttitude towards children and family life.
Yes, that's right about their western secular attitude. As the Muslims assimilate in the West, their fertility rate appears to be decreasing.
BTW, would you consider Russia to be a western country, with a western secular attitude? Russia has historically been somewhat suspicious of the west, so it is questionable as to whether it is a western country with a western secular attitude? Anyway, the abortion rate in Russia is one of the highest in the world, even though it has had a suspicious attitude toward the west:
Abortion rates, by country per 1000 people:
# 1 

Russia:

19.2885 per 1,000 people





# 2 

Bulgaria:

13.0232 per 1,000 people





# 3 

Hungary:

7.69032 per 1,000 people





# 4 

Cuba:

7.39958 per 1,000 people





# 5 

Sweden:

4.16452 per 1,000 people





# 6 

United States:

4.0945 per 1,000 people ...etc.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.
Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it... ;)
Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.
My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.
so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.
Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.
and the Muslims have birth control.
As time passes, and Muslims become more familiar with the western methods of ABC, the fertility rate for Muslims does appear to be going down, but still it is higher than the Christian fertility rate. The fertility rate for R Catholics appears to be slightly higher than that for Orthodox Christians in Greece, but not by much.
The Muslims are quite familiar with all methods of birth control, including what is called "Natural Family Planning": the Islamic states have been pushing birth control since the 50's, the large Muslim population in the former USSR also being exposed, like the Muslims in India.  What they don't have is the Western secular atttitude towards children and family life.
Yes, that's right about their western secular attitude. As the Muslims assimilate in the West, their fertility rate appears to be decreasing.
BTW, would you consider Russia to be a western country, with a western secular attitude? Russia has historically been somewhat suspicious of the west, so it is questionable as to whether it is a western country with a western secular attitude? Anyway, the abortion rate in Russia is one of the highest in the world, even though it has had a suspicious attitude toward the west:
it also has a Marxist past.  As Bismark warned, Russia only caught Nihilism and other diseases n the West.

It's always been the West as far as we (Middle East, Arabs) were concerned.  And it has definitely been Western ever since Czar Peter dragged it there.

With the Church promoting the restoration of family life, the move away from abortion has only just begun. Hopefully the embrace of children is coming.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Papist said:
Aw, I think you are missing Chesterton's "democracy of the dead here". The Pope did, in fact, have the consent of the Church if you were to look back at 1900 years of tradition. For 1900 years, the Church clearly taught that contraception was wrong and this demonstrates a clear consensus among Catholics. The twentieth century, is clearly an anomoly, and should not be considered the measure of the sensus fidei which preserves the deposit of the Christian faith.
Though this post is old...I think this is a very good point and worth taking another look at. The Church is not just the present universal institution of believers. The Church is all Christians at all times. It is eternal. It is the Communion of Saints. To me, Humanae Vitae is a good example of why the Pope is so crucial in the Church. Without him, we would have went the way of the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to contraception which I think would have been a mistake, yet Pope Paul VI safeguarded truth with his encyclical.

Which is more patristic...opposing all forms of birth control except natural family planning (the RC position) when the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control, or allowing all forms of non-abortive birth control (EO position) despite the fact that the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control. Indeed, both positions are developments from the original position of the Fathers, yet which one is truly closer to the mind and heart of the Fathers?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Wyatt said:
Papist said:
Aw, I think you are missing Chesterton's "democracy of the dead here". The Pope did, in fact, have the consent of the Church if you were to look back at 1900 years of tradition. For 1900 years, the Church clearly taught that contraception was wrong and this demonstrates a clear consensus among Catholics. The twentieth century, is clearly an anomoly, and should not be considered the measure of the sensus fidei which preserves the deposit of the Christian faith.
Though this post is old...I think this is a very good point and worth taking another look at. The Church is not just the present universal institution of believers. The Church is all Christians at all times. It is eternal. It is the Communion of Saints. To me, Humanae Vitae is a good example of why the Pope is so crucial in the Church. Without him, we would have went the way of the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to contraception which I think would have been a mistake, yet Pope Paul VI safeguarded truth with his encyclical.
which agreed with no one in the preceeding 1900 years.  Any other Protestant can do the like.  But then the Protestants are your kin, and so we can see why you prefer their/your ways, rather than the steadfastness of the Orthodox.

Wyatt said:
Which is more patristic...opposing all forms of birth control except natural family planning (the RC position) when the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control,
SOME Fathers opposed not only all forms of birth control, including sex with the infertile, and others, e.g. St. John Chrysostom, opposed such ideas.

Wyatt said:
or allowing all forms of non-abortive birth control (EO position) despite the fact that the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control. Indeed, both positions are developments from the original position of the Fathers, yet which one is truly closer to the mind and heart of the Fathers?
Since you resort to misrepresenting the Fathers, you aren't in a position to know the mind and heart of the Fathers.

Taking, for sake of argument, your skewed picture, you're still out of luck. You claim all Fathers opposed all contraception. You allow contraception (while denying its contraception), and we allow contraception.  I.e. no difference.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Wyatt said:
Contraception =/= birth control
with all this redefinitinon, it's a shame the world of 1984 didn't come about.  You'd be a natural in the Ministry of Truth.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Wyatt said:
Papist said:
Aw, I think you are missing Chesterton's "democracy of the dead here". The Pope did, in fact, have the consent of the Church if you were to look back at 1900 years of tradition. For 1900 years, the Church clearly taught that contraception was wrong and this demonstrates a clear consensus among Catholics. The twentieth century, is clearly an anomoly, and should not be considered the measure of the sensus fidei which preserves the deposit of the Christian faith.
Though this post is old...I think this is a very good point and worth taking another look at. The Church is not just the present universal institution of believers. The Church is all Christians at all times. It is eternal. It is the Communion of Saints. To me, Humanae Vitae is a good example of why the Pope is so crucial in the Church. Without him, we would have went the way of the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to contraception which I think would have been a mistake, yet Pope Paul VI safeguarded truth with his encyclical.

Which is more patristic...opposing all forms of birth control except natural family planning (the RC position) when the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control, or allowing all forms of non-abortive birth control (EO position) despite the fact that the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control. Indeed, both positions are developments from the original position of the Fathers, yet which one is truly closer to the mind and heart of the Fathers?
But what is the effect of Catholic teaching? If you compare the fertility rate in Catholic countries like Spain and Italy with some of the Orthodox countries, they are not too far apart and in fact in some cases, the Orthodox fertility rate is higher. And the rate in Moslem countries is higher still.  For example, in a Moslem country such as Niger , the fertility rate (births per woman) is about 7.5, and in an Eastern Orthodox country such as Serbia the fertility rate is about 1.8. Compare that with the fertility rate of Catholic countries such as Poland 1.2, or Italy 1.4. Apparently Catholics are not following the teaching of their Church, while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
stanley123 said:
Wyatt said:
Papist said:
Aw, I think you are missing Chesterton's "democracy of the dead here". The Pope did, in fact, have the consent of the Church if you were to look back at 1900 years of tradition. For 1900 years, the Church clearly taught that contraception was wrong and this demonstrates a clear consensus among Catholics. The twentieth century, is clearly an anomoly, and should not be considered the measure of the sensus fidei which preserves the deposit of the Christian faith.
Though this post is old...I think this is a very good point and worth taking another look at. The Church is not just the present universal institution of believers. The Church is all Christians at all times. It is eternal. It is the Communion of Saints. To me, Humanae Vitae is a good example of why the Pope is so crucial in the Church. Without him, we would have went the way of the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to contraception which I think would have been a mistake, yet Pope Paul VI safeguarded truth with his encyclical.

Which is more patristic...opposing all forms of birth control except natural family planning (the RC position) when the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control, or allowing all forms of non-abortive birth control (EO position) despite the fact that the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control. Indeed, both positions are developments from the original position of the Fathers, yet which one is truly closer to the mind and heart of the Fathers?
But what is the effect of Catholic teaching? If you compare the fertility rate in Catholic countries like Spain and Italy with some of the Orthodox countries, they are not too far apart and in fact in some cases, the Orthodox fertility rate is higher. And the rate in Moslem countries is higher still.  For example, in a Moslem country such as Niger , the fertility rate (births per woman) is about 7.5, and in an Eastern Orthodox country such as Serbia the fertility rate is about 1.8. Compare that with the fertility rate of Catholic countries such as Poland 1.2, or Italy 1.4. Apparently Catholics are not following the teaching of their Church, while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.
Abortion Statistics for Italy

For the year 2008:

Live births.... 576,659

Abortions......121,406

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-italy.html
 

Poppy

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
1,119
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
i&#039;m in barkshar
Website
www.zsl.org
while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.
Muslims have to take their religion more seriously because they don't get all loved up and forgiven if they are slack. I went out with a Muslim bloke Tariq for three years and you should have heard his family on the phone when he didn't do stuff that he was supposed to... blimey i wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Poppy said:
while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.
Muslims have to take their religion more seriously because they don't get all loved up and forgiven if they are slack. I went out with a Muslim bloke Tariq for three years and you should have heard his family on the phone when he didn't do stuff that he was supposed to... blimey i wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley.
A third of Islam is all sorts of rules you can't keep, a third is paranoia that Allah is going to give it to you for not following all the rules ('adhaab al-qabr "the torment of the grave" bring that up to a Muslim and see him shiver) and a third is watching, sticking your nose into everyone else's business to make sure they follow all the rules.

I've been fortunate to know Muslims who don't fit the above discription, but the massess fit that description.  Usually the pious Muslims I've know are the former, the ones who know nothing about Islam except "it's right"  in the latter.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
3
Points
38
ialmisry said:
Poppy said:
while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.
Muslims have to take their religion more seriously because they don't get all loved up and forgiven if they are slack. I went out with a Muslim bloke Tariq for three years and you should have heard his family on the phone when he didn't do stuff that he was supposed to... blimey i wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley.
A third of Islam is all sorts of rules you can't keep, a third is paranoia that Allah is going to give it to you for not following all the rules ('adhaab al-qabr "the torment of the grave" bring that up to a Muslim and see him shiver) and a third is watching, sticking your nose into everyone else's business to make sure they follow all the rules.

I've been fortunate to know Muslims who don't fit the above discription, but the massess fit that description.  Usually the pious Muslims I've know are the former, the ones who know nothing about Islam except "it's right"  in the latter.
So the pious ones are the more relaxed ones? If I might ask, what, in your opinion, causes such a paradoxical result?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Cavaradossi said:
ialmisry said:
Poppy said:
while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.
Muslims have to take their religion more seriously because they don't get all loved up and forgiven if they are slack. I went out with a Muslim bloke Tariq for three years and you should have heard his family on the phone when he didn't do stuff that he was supposed to... blimey i wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley.
A third of Islam is all sorts of rules you can't keep, a third is paranoia that Allah is going to give it to you for not following all the rules ('adhaab al-qabr "the torment of the grave" bring that up to a Muslim and see him shiver) and a third is watching, sticking your nose into everyone else's business to make sure they follow all the rules.

I've been fortunate to know Muslims who don't fit the above discription, but the massess fit that description.  Usually the pious Muslims I've know are the former, the ones who know nothing about Islam except "it's right"  in the latter.
So the pious ones are the more relaxed ones? If I might ask, what, in your opinion, causes such a paradoxical result?
They tend to be humbler, and try to breath spirit into the letter of the law.  The nominal ones, having nothing else, cling to the letter of the law.

There is a lot wrong with Islam, but it does have its moments. For instance, the accounts of their Prophet's household in his latter life is scandal, but the accounts of his devotion to his first wife are exemplary.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
Wyatt said:
Contraception =/= birth control
with all this redefinitinon, it's a shame the world of 1984 didn't come about.  You'd be a natural in the Ministry of Truth.
Physician heal thyself
Don't have to do it myself.  I have the Church.

I'd ask what malaprops point you wanted to make, but given the dearth of originality, I suspect it's just tit for my tat in another thread.

anullment=divorce, contraception=birth control, "natural family planning"=birth control....the "pro-choice" (i.e. pro-abortion) ilk, the "marriage equality" (i.e. gay marriage) cabal and the "reproductive rights" (i.e. unfettered fornication) crowd have nothing on your Vatican.  Odd, given the Scholastic pursuit of defining things in re as they are (or so they claim).  And that's before your self authorized musings on your ecclesial community's propaganda.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
Wyatt said:
Contraception =/= birth control
with all this redefinitinon, it's a shame the world of 1984 didn't come about.  You'd be a natural in the Ministry of Truth.
Physician heal thyself
Don't have to do it myself.  I have the Church.

I'd ask what malaprops point you wanted to make, but given the dearth of originality, I suspect it's just tit for my tat in another thread.

anullment=divorce, contraception=birth control, "natural family planning"=birth control....the "pro-choice" (i.e. pro-abortion) ilk, the "marriage equality" (i.e. gay marriage) cabal and the "reproductive rights" (i.e. unfettered fornication) crowd have nothing on your Vatican.  Odd, given the Scholastic pursuit of defining things in re as they are (or so they claim).  And that's before your self authorized musings on your ecclesial community's propaganda.
My Church does not heal me.  The Christ heals me, and sometimes He does so through the Body of Christ on earth...which of course is the Church of my Baptism.

I find it interesting that nobody pokes at our infantile banter, if I just be quiet and let you pound on me and my Church... :) :) :) :D
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria said:
The "natural law" in the understanding of the Church is nothing more than God's Providence in Creation...all driven by Caritas.
yes, sort of like how Descartes using "cogito ergo sum" to pay lip service to God, and then go dream up whatever he wants.

The Vatican's understanding is all driven by scholasticism, nothing more than pagan philosophy with a Christian veneer.
Only the very most ignorant will follow you in this.
It was brought to my attention recently that Noonan, in his magnus opus on the matter, points out that the Vatican's teaching on the subject matter of HV comes directly from Stoicism, a conclusion I have otherwise come to.  For one thing, that is starkly brought out by the CCC's quotation of the Stoic Cicero for its "Natural Law," the basis of HV.

I haven't been able to get a copy of Noonan to read it through, so I can't repeat his argument, nor the criticism that he didn't completely prove the case.  Since I've already posted bits I've found, I shan't repeat them at this point.

Care to put some evidentiary meat on that ad hominem bone?
 

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:
The "natural law" in the understanding of the Church is nothing more than God's Providence in Creation...all driven by Caritas.
yes, sort of like how Descartes using "cogito ergo sum" to pay lip service to God, and then go dream up whatever he wants.

The Vatican's understanding is all driven by scholasticism, nothing more than pagan philosophy with a Christian veneer.
Only the very most ignorant will follow you in this.
It was brought to my attention recently that Noonan, in his magnus opus on the matter, points out that the Vatican's teaching on the subject matter of HV comes directly from Stoicism, a conclusion I have otherwise come to.  For one thing, that is starkly brought out by the CCC's quotation of the Stoic Cicero for its "Natural Law," the basis of HV.
This is all hocus-pocus since the Church over the centuries has Christianized many many more pagan philosophical concepts than just this.

Your rants against natural law...are just that...rantings.

And then you find someone who agrees with you...wow!!  :laugh:
 
Top