• 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

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
25
Location
The Underground
#1Sinner said:
Michał Kalina said:
"When united with egg". Unless that occurs sperm is as life-giving as snot.
I stated that sperm had potentiality as opposed to hair and nails which you used in your original analogy. If you are going to argue with me over that point I'll assume you're just trolling.

Good day.
Hair and nails have potentiality if you give me a high-tech cloning machine. Millions of sperm are destroyed even in the act of old-fashioned vanilla intercourse, as ultimately only one out of the millions ends up fertilizing the egg.
 

#1Sinner

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Points
0
JamesR said:
#1Sinner said:
Michał Kalina said:
"When united with egg". Unless that occurs sperm is as life-giving as snot.
I stated that sperm had potentiality as opposed to hair and nails which you used in your original analogy. If you are going to argue with me over that point I'll assume you're just trolling.

Good day.
Hair and nails have potentiality if you give me a high-tech cloning machine. Millions of sperm are destroyed even in the act of old-fashioned vanilla intercourse, as ultimately only one out of the millions ends up fertilizing the egg.
Which of course is not germane to its nature but an unnatural addition or modification.

This really isn't that difficult, no need to over think it.
 

#1Sinner

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Points
0
JamesR said:
What? You mean the view that it's somehow wrong to use "artificial birth control/contraception" like condoms or the pill, but it's okay to "pull-out" or study the woman's menstrual cycle like a book so that you can only have relations on days when she's least fertile because for some odd reason, birth control is only bad when you bring in "artificial" methods?

This is something I don't get about RC/Latin thinking; it applies to marriage as well. How come it's not okay to divorce and get separated, but it's okay to cop-out and say "well, it was never a real marriage in the first place" and thus cause uncertainty to arise about the validity (or lack of) of the Sacraments?

It's all basically just the same thing, just a different means. If your problem is with the concept--preventing pregnancy and/or a man and woman separating--then how come you only attack the means of doing so while permitting other means to do it? Shouldn't all means, by default, be condemned, since your real problem is with the concept?
I'm not getting into the contraception argument again since it will be ultimately fruitless (no pun intended) for a variety of reasons.

However you asked why is it not ok to divorce.....I'll let our Lord answer that one:

Matthew 19:9: And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

I fear discussing the difference between annulment and divorce will be equally pointless since it seems that there is a lot of talking past one another just like the NFP vs contraception debate. If you are truly interested in learning the Catholic understanding of this I would prefer to go to PM so as not to derail the thread or have it turn into a food fight.

God bless.
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
25
Location
The Underground
#1Sinner said:
Which of course is not germane to its nature but an unnatural addition or modification.
And this comes from an extremely flawed view of "nature" and "modification." If something happens, it is natural. It's that simple. If cloning happens, it's natural. Philosophically speaking, everything that happens in the universe is, by definition, natural. You need to study your terms better. All of this other junk and hurr hurr "NFP is okay but NOOO to 'artificial' means" is a load of crock idealism. It's no different. I don't know why you have to make so many unnecessary distinctions that IMO, fall apart under clever scrutiny.



This really isn't that difficult, no need to over think it.
It isn't; I don't know why you Latinists have to make "nature" and all this crap more confusing than it really is.
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
25
Location
The Underground
#1Sinner said:
However you asked why is it not ok to divorce.....I'll let our Lord answer that one:
No I didn't; I criticized the silly Latin view that divorce is wrong, but it's okay to cop-out and say "well, it wasn't really a marriage in the first place." (Annulment). That's a silly cop-out and cheap excuse to have practically the same thing.

Matthew 19:9: And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
Yet, your Church doesn't even "let the Lord answer this one."

I fear discussing the difference between annulment and divorce will be equally pointless since it seems that there is a lot of talking past one another just like the NFP vs contraception debate.
That's because there is no difference In essence, it's the same thing. Again, your Church's theology makes too many unnecessary distinctions and silly cop-outs to justify practically the same thing as is "condemned."
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,308
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
JamesR said:
If something happens, it is natural. It's that simple. If cloning happens, it's natural. Philosophically speaking, everything that happens in the universe is, by definition, natural. You need to study your terms better.
LOL!
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
JamesR said:
And this comes from an extremely flawed view of "nature" and "modification." If something happens, it is natural. It's that simple. If cloning happens, it's natural. Philosophically speaking, everything that happens in the universe is, by definition, natural. You need to study your terms better.
Technically, an ejaculation is a short verbal expression with strong feeling; however, if you say "I ejaculate about five to six times a day," in reference to the number of times you yell out, "Yikes!", "Woah!", or "Darn!", even people who know what you mean are going to snicker.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
JamesR said:
#1Sinner said:
Michał Kalina said:
"When united with egg". Unless that occurs sperm is as life-giving as snot.
I stated that sperm had potentiality as opposed to hair and nails which you used in your original analogy. If you are going to argue with me over that point I'll assume you're just trolling.

Good day.
Hair and nails have potentiality if you give me a high-tech cloning machine. Millions of sperm are destroyed even in the act of old-fashioned vanilla intercourse, as ultimately only one out of the millions ends up fertilizing the egg.
Not only that, but if the sperm(azoa) isn't ejaculated, the body kills it in a matter of weeks.  So if a man doesn't engage in continual intercourse with a woman since puberty, he is killed "potential life" continually.  That includes monks.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
#1Sinner said:
Michał Kalina said:
#1Sinner said:
Sperm, while not sentient or alive in the same sense as a multicell organism, has as its God ordained end the transmission of life.
No. Unless you believe in preformationism.
Sperm don't have as their ordained end the transmission of life when united to an egg? That's news to me.
much is, especially when it comes to embryology.

Many spermazoa, even in the case where a spermazoa unites to an egg, meet their end just pushing the fertilized egg along quicker to be implanted in the womb. If they unite with the egg, they will kill the life. If they don't push it, it wont' make it in time.  How is that not an "ordained end."

On your "ordained end" natural law fantasies, stolen from the Stoics, see here-
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
 

#1Sinner

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Points
0
JamesR said:
#1Sinner said:
Which of course is not germane to its nature but an unnatural addition or modification.
And this comes from an extremely flawed view of "nature" and "modification." If something happens, it is natural. It's that simple. If cloning happens, it's natural. Philosophically speaking, everything that happens in the universe is, by definition, natural. You need to study your terms better. All of this other junk and hurr hurr "NFP is okay but NOOO to 'artificial' means" is a load of crock idealism. It's no different. I don't know why you have to make so many unnecessary distinctions that IMO, fall apart under clever scrutiny.



This really isn't that difficult, no need to over think it.
It isn't; I don't know why you Latinists have to make "nature" and all this crap more confusing than it really is.
Your definition of "natural" basically equals "anything goes." Murder is natural, fornication is natural, adultery, masturbation, interfering with the known and predictable process of nature in order to affect a different result......all of this is "natural."

As I said, I'm not going to get into the other issues with you since you have proven that you aren't interested in dispassionate discussion but would rather refer to my side's arguments as "crap." You do not understand the Church's reasons and arguments and your immaturity prevents you from listening to and considering contrary points since you are still at that age where you are always right. My oldest son is about your age......I know how it goes.

 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
#1Sinner said:
As I said, I'm not going to get into the other issues with you since you have proven that you aren't interested in dispassionate discussion but would rather refer to my side's arguments as "crap." You do not understand the Church's reasons and arguments and your immaturity prevents you from listening to and considering contrary points since you are still at that age where you are always right. My oldest son is about your age......I know how it goes.
He does, you not. That's the reason you left the Church.
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
ialmisry said:
Not only that, but if the sperm(azoa) isn't ejaculated, the body kills it in a matter of weeks.  So if a man doesn't engage in continual intercourse with a woman since puberty, he is killed "potential life" continually.  That includes monks.
And what about spouses who have sex while the wife is pregnant? It can't be "open to life" at all. Just sperm genocide.
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
ZealousZeal said:
ialmisry said:
Not only that, but if the sperm(azoa) isn't ejaculated, the body kills it in a matter of weeks.  So if a man doesn't engage in continual intercourse with a woman since puberty, he is killed "potential life" continually.  That includes monks.
And what about spouses who have sex while the wife is pregnant? It can't be "open to life" at all. Just sperm genocide.
Please be very careful as to what you talk about on this subject.......
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
25
Location
The Underground
#1Sinner said:
JamesR said:
#1Sinner said:
Which of course is not germane to its nature but an unnatural addition or modification.
And this comes from an extremely flawed view of "nature" and "modification." If something happens, it is natural. It's that simple. If cloning happens, it's natural. Philosophically speaking, everything that happens in the universe is, by definition, natural. You need to study your terms better. All of this other junk and hurr hurr "NFP is okay but NOOO to 'artificial' means" is a load of crock idealism. It's no different. I don't know why you have to make so many unnecessary distinctions that IMO, fall apart under clever scrutiny.



This really isn't that difficult, no need to over think it.
It isn't; I don't know why you Latinists have to make "nature" and all this crap more confusing than it really is.
Your definition of "natural" basically equals "anything goes." Murder is natural, fornication is natural, adultery, masturbation, interfering with the known and predictable process of nature in order to affect a different result......all of this is "natural."
No it isn't; that's a strawman. My definition of nature basically equals "anything happens." The morality of what happens is another case altogether, and philosophically speaking, this is my problem with Latinists merging together the study of nature and the study of morality even though the two things are separate. I believe this is the reason for their extremely flawed, overly complex views on nature and morality. And all of those things you mentioned ARE natural; interfering with the "predictable process of nature" is a part of the process of nature. Latinists only consider it "unnatural" and therefore "bad" (which makes no sense) simply because it differs from past observed phenomena. But nature HAS NO LAWS or "process." It just happens and is. The "laws" of nature and "predictable process" are merely human inventions describing what we have observed in the past. But nature can, by definition, happen differently in the future and still be nature.

Bringing morality into this is entirely irrelevant, a strawman of my position, and a red herring. Morality and nature are not related at all. Rape is natural (even Richard Dawkins, renowned biologist, says so) yet, it is immoral. Morality isn't defined by nature nor is nature defined by morality. Morality is morality and nature is nature. Our duty is to subject our nature to morality; not derive our morals from nature (which is impossible) or deny nature because it conflicts with our morals. I see this practice as another sign of Latin legalism; you consider something immoral or "bad" simply because it doesn't coincide with your manmade "laws of nature."--what you have observed in the past. In essence, it's applying the judicial concept of breaking-a-law/crime to the concept of nature itself. How arrogant.

As I said, I'm not going to get into the other issues with you since you have proven that you aren't interested in dispassionate discussion but would rather refer to my side's arguments as "crap." You do not understand the Church's reasons and arguments and your immaturity prevents you from listening to and considering contrary points since you are still at that age where you are always right. My oldest son is about your age......I know how it goes.
My behavior has no bearing on whether or not what I say is true. Truth is truth regardless of how it is said or who says it. Nice way to play the age-card again btw when you can't think of anything else to say.
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
JoeS2 said:
Please be very careful as to what you talk about on this subject.......
I'm not trying to talk about anything graphically or disrespectfully. The topic is the Catholic Church and BC, which of course includes their stance that sex must be open to life. I'm merely pointing out that in the situation I described, that is impossible. My last sentence is related to the last few posts that are discussing the purpose of sperm. Again in the scenario I described, sperm's purpose (assuming it is the transmission of life, as was claimed) is also impossible to achieve.

I hope that helps clarify my post for you.
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
25
Location
The Underground
ZealousZeal said:
ialmisry said:
Not only that, but if the sperm(azoa) isn't ejaculated, the body kills it in a matter of weeks.  So if a man doesn't engage in continual intercourse with a woman since puberty, he is killed "potential life" continually.  That includes monks.
And what about spouses who have sex while the wife is pregnant? It can't be "open to life" at all. Just sperm genocide.
Better yet, what about having sex with your wife after she has gone through menopause? That's not "open to life" at all.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,308
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
JamesR said:
No it isn't; that's a strawman. My definition of nature basically equals "anything happens." The morality of what happens is another case altogether, and philosophically speaking, this is my problem with Latinists merging together the study of nature and the study of morality even though the two things are separate. I believe this is the reason for their extremely flawed, overly complex views on nature and morality. And all of those things you mentioned ARE natural; interfering with the "predictable process of nature" is a part of the process of nature. Latinists only consider it "unnatural" and therefore "bad" (which makes no sense) simply because it differs from past observed phenomena. But nature HAS NO LAWS or "process." It just happens and is. The "laws" of nature and "predictable process" are merely human inventions describing what we have observed in the past. But nature can, by definition, happen differently in the future and still be nature.
What's a Latinist, James, and why are Latinists so problematic?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
I came across a sentence that encapsulates the problems with Scholasticism-
the scholastic tradition, in which conclusions are produced by applying reason of first principles or prior definitions rather than to empirical evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz
 

username!

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
5,090
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Where Iron hydrochloride ruins watersheds
have catholics really fundamentally make the church secular? ignoring teachings openly of rome? everyone does, just not to the degree many catholics I know do.
it's the church and home connection between ethnic time honored traditions do that link people to church. wipe that clean and you have secular atheist practices being done at home, like Halloween etc.. be celebrated and church kept out. western society wasn't made to accomdate church. the religious outside if church traditions were disconnected to the church celebrations. all that remains is disenfranchised worshippers who make church a tiny part of their lives. ignoring church teachings for that of pop culture. the Catholic Church says no artificial bc, but society says ok. so the catholics by the large numbers in the west say ok. instead of listening to their bishops they'll listen to what the news tell them to think.
and why look to Rome when the current pope seems to destroy it's remains? that's what a lot of catholics think these days. it's not like people don't talk religion outside the interwebs.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
Surnaturel said:
The Catholic position on birth control is straightforward in a sense: the ends of sex in marriage are procreative and unitive, just as form and matter, and to intrinsically remove either via BC or rape, respectively, is to degrade the sacramental union by corrupting the ends for which God ordained.
Yes, well stated. Contrary to what Ialmisry implied earlier, the Fathers arraign with the greatest severity both men and women who deliberately frustrate the purpose for which the union of the spouses was ordained by God.  Beside the well known example of Onan in Gen 38 cited by St. Augustine and St. Jerome, St. Clement of Alexandria's and St. Epiphanius of Salamis railing against the lawless practice of certain early sects, St. Hippolytus condemns those type of 'contraceptives' that function more as abortifacients, "they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" , St. Caesarius of Arles declares, "Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund?" while Lactantius writes, "God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring." Several other patristic citations can be found by those interested in the link below.

http://scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

There is also a condemnation of φαρμακεία ('Pharmakeia') in the New Testament itself, usually translated "witchcraft" or "sorcery" (cf. Gal 5:20, Apoc 21:8), the context makes it more likely it refers to drugs or potions used to procure sterility (see https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10818 for a discussion and some references). Denunciations of potions or medicines made for the same purpose as modern birth control pills are absolutely universal in the Fathers, and they present consenting to it as the most degrading of acts, St. John Chrysostom laments "Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility, 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 laws?" and presciently notes lawless couples who regularly practice it often end up viewing what is universally considered a blessing, the gift of children, as rather a curse. Something very much true of today's godless materialistic culture. "that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome."
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Xavier said:
Surnaturel said:
The Catholic position on birth control is straightforward in a sense: the ends of sex in marriage are procreative and unitive, just as form and matter, and to intrinsically remove either via BC or rape, respectively, is to degrade the sacramental union by corrupting the ends for which God ordained.
Yes, well stated. Contrary to what Ialmisry implied earlier
ialmisry does not imply. He states quite plainly.
Xavier said:
the Fathers arraign with the greatest severity both men and women who deliberately frustrate the purpose for which the union of the spouses was ordained by God.
you mean the universal condemnation by those Fathers (who expressed an opinion) of the practice enjoined by Humane Vitae and called "Natural family planning" by the Vatican?
Xavier said:
Beside the well known example of Onan in Gen 38 cited by St. Augustine and St. Jerome
St. Jerome said "the blood of martyrdom does not remove the stain of marriage." And St. Augustine's confusion of sex with the transmission of original sin is better known.
Xavier said:
St. Clement of Alexandria's and St. Epiphanius of Salamis railing against the lawless practice of certain early sects, St. Hippolytus condemns those type of 'contraceptives' that function more as abortifacients, "they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" ,
contraceptives=/=abortifacients, the latter of course forbidden as immoral.
Xavier said:
St. Caesarius of Arles declares, "Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund?" while Lactantius writes, "God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring." Several other patristic citations can be found by those interested in the link below.

http://scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html
We have dealt with the ignorance of Lactantius and others previously,e.g.:
ialmisry said:
SS. Clement, Lactantius, Augustine and Jerome, according to the Vatican's apologists, disagree.
Clement of Alexandria
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3).

Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).
I guess Lactantius never urinated (although I suspect he never ejaculated either, at least in a woman. So his member served no purpose, except for entrance into the male ruling club. On him and this work here quoted by the HV apologists, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says
The Divine Institutions" (Divinarum Institutionum Libri VII), written between 303 and 311. This the most important of all the writings of Lactantius is systematic as well as apologetic and was intended to point out the futility of pagan beliefs and to establish the reasonableness and truth of Christianity. It was the first attempt at a systematic exposition of Christian theology in Latin, and though aimed at certain pamphleteers who were aiding the persecutors by literary assaults on the Church, the work was planned on a scale sufficiently broad enough to silence all opponents. The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
To which can be added Copernicus' assessment on his astronomy, which can be said of his biology and family counseling as well
Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius#Copernican_criticism
So too marriage for the married.
Xavier said:
There is also a condemnation of φαρμακεία ('Pharmakeia') in the New Testament itself, usually translated "witchcraft" or "sorcery" (cf. Gal 5:20, Apoc 21:8), the context makes it more likely it refers to drugs or potions used to procure sterility (see https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10818 for a discussion and some references).
it unfortunately ignores that sorcery and witchcraft also had drugs and potions used to increase fertility as well.

Denunciations of potions or medicines made for the same purpose as modern birth control pills are absolutely universal in the Fathers[/quote]
the topic rarely comes up, let alone denunciations. But where it does, they do explicitly denounce what HV calls NFP.
 

stella1990

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
132
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I believe marriages must have the number of children they can support...
If one marries one must desire to have children... but the number depends on your health, financial situation, etc...
Some people thinks that you must get married, get pregnant, give birth, get the baby baptized and if the baby dies because of lack of food, shelter, medicine, etc... it doesnt matter because the baby will go with God... it doesnt matter if the baby is starving and suffering to death... or if the mother has 10 children and the father becomes ill, she has to work outside home and children dont have any adult to care of them... "As long as you give birth and baptize all is right". I find it very CRUEL... because a lot of people who said this... never have been without food...In RC Church trad environment I know of a Bishop who thinks in this manner but he lives in a very rich house in a very rich neighbourhood, has all the food that he wants, and can go to operas and other stuff.
Its easy to say that others must have all the children "that God sends" when one only has to open the freezer and get your food...

It makes me angry.

pd. If the pill is abortifacient it must be avoided, but there are other natural methods...
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
I have to admit my amusement listening to the Vatican apologists groaning from all the twisting and turning they had to do when this story broke. Such gymnastics!  I loved how they not only had to justify their present "infallible source of unity" but his predecessor who issued HV.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/popes-comments-on-contraception-in-accord-with-magisterium-philosophers-say
Pope Francis’ comments on the Zika virus Feb. 17, which many news outlets read as a softening of the Church’s definitive teaching on artificial contraception, were in accordance with the magisterium, Church philosophers say.

The Pope responded by emphatically stating that abortion is “a crime” and “absolute evil” that cannot be justified. He also spoke on the topic of avoiding pregnancy. “Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape,” he said.
The story was in that latter case that the pill only prevented the eggs from being released to be fertilized. Well, duh, that's the same thing condoms do on the other side.

That's "in accord" with HV?
 

Minnesotan

Archon
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Maria said:
St. John Chrysostom said somewhere that killing of sperm is akin to homicide.

I take him at his word as sperm are alive. When we deliberately kill any living thing that God has created, be it sperm, spiders, or ducks, we are not acting in a very Christian manner.
Don't forget plants; they're living things, too. How's that inedia working out for you?

stella1990 said:
I believe marriages must have the number of children they can support...
If one marries one must desire to have children... but the number depends on your health, financial situation, etc...
Some people thinks that you must get married, get pregnant, give birth, get the baby baptized and if the baby dies because of lack of food, shelter, medicine, etc... it doesnt matter because the baby will go with God... it doesnt matter if the baby is starving and suffering to death... or if the mother has 10 children and the father becomes ill, she has to work outside home and children dont have any adult to care of them... "As long as you give birth and baptize all is right". I find it very CRUEL... because a lot of people who said this... never have been without food...In RC Church trad environment I know of a Bishop who thinks in this manner but he lives in a very rich house in a very rich neighbourhood, has all the food that he wants, and can go to operas and other stuff.
Its easy to say that others must have all the children "that God sends" when one only has to open the freezer and get your food...

It makes me angry.

pd. If the pill is abortifacient it must be avoided, but there are other natural methods...
Absolutely. The problem with those natalists is that they are pro-birth, but NOT "pro-life". They're not the same thing, even if Americans confuse the two. There's something wrong with people who think it's a good idea to bring as many children as possible into the world only to have them starve. You can find this kind of attitude among some evangelical homeschooling subcultures in the US, too. Abuse and neglect are all too common in these types of families; some of the cases that have come to life are truly nighmarish. I call it factory parenting, by analogy with factory farming, which it closely resembles. If you want to talk about a "culture of death", that's a culture of death right there.
 

Minnesotan

Archon
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
JamesR said:
ZealousZeal said:
ialmisry said:
Not only that, but if the sperm(azoa) isn't ejaculated, the body kills it in a matter of weeks.  So if a man doesn't engage in continual intercourse with a woman since puberty, he is killed "potential life" continually.  That includes monks.
And what about spouses who have sex while the wife is pregnant? It can't be "open to life" at all. Just sperm genocide.
Better yet, what about having sex with your wife after she has gone through menopause? That's not "open to life" at all.
You better tell that to Abraham and Sarah.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
ialmisry said:
I'll continue, but first I'll post what I'll already said:
See I cross referenced, I though I'd do the same with a recent thought:
ialmisry said:
ialmisry said:
truthseeker32 said:
Thanks everyone for this discussion! You have given me a lot to think about. Because I fear I am making a poor argument for the Roman Catholic position I will appeal to the philosopher GEM Anscombe:
You are not making a poor argument, it is just a poor argument to make.
In one word: Christianity taught that men ought to be as chaste as pagans thought honest women ought to be; the contraceptive morality teaches that women need to be as little chaste as pagans thought men need be.
An assertion which she begs throughout the piece.  Again, in this she follows most apologists of HV, who seem to think contraception means "sex on demand" 24/7, and couples engaging in contraception are permanently joined at their hips (or thereabouts). 

And if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with contraceptive intercourse, and if it could become general practice everywhere when there is intercourse but ought to be no begetting, then it's very difficult to see the objection to this morality, for the ground of objection to fornication and adultery was that sexual intercourse is only right in the sort of set-up that typically provides children with a father and mother to care for them. If you can turn intercourse into something other than the reproductive type of act (I don't mean of course that every act is reproductive any more than every acorn leads to an oak-tree but it's the reproductive type of act) then why, if you can change it, should it be restricted to the married? Restricted, that is, to partners bound in a formal, legal, union whose fundamental purpose is the bringing up of children? For if that is not its fundamental purpose there is no reason why for example "marriage" should have to be between people of opposite sexes. But then, of course, it becomes unclear why you should have a ceremony, why you should have a formality at all. And so we must grant that children are in this general way the main point of the existence of such an arrangement. But if sexual union can be deliberately and totally divorced from fertility, then we may wonder why sexual union has got to be married union. If the expression of love between the partners is the point, then it shouldn't be so narrowly confined.
Only the mentality which dreams up the Corban of annullments could dream up such a paragraph.  She seems to deny the fact that children can and are produced from reproductive types of act outside of marriage all the time (whether they should is another issue).  Would she argue, for instance, that woman-on-top or dorsal intercourse "turn[s ] intercourse into something other than the reproductive type of act"? Because the Stoic philosophy which formed the basis of HV's position and the meagre patristics and canons which nurtured it argued just that.

People shouldn't marry to have children: that renders the husband a sperm donor and the wife a baby maker.  Marriage should result in children, but they are the result, not the aim, of the marriage.  Her argument, as other apologists for HV, reduce couples to breeders.
Rereading this, I was struck by the thought of the test-tube babies, artificial insemination, sperm donation, egg donation especially for the single and the homosexual nowadays... how much does all this fertility divorced from sexual union renders Anscombe's "logic" as utter absurdity.
 
Top