Orthodox and birth control

[josephdaniel29]

One is legitimate (neutral), and the other is not(sinful). That is the difference.

Your comments on annulments also reveal you have no idea what it is. Sorry my friend; try again.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

Listen I don’t have the energy or the patience to argue the annulment issue again. I started to enter the Catholic Church and began the annulment process. I know exactly what it is.

The bottom line is two people who were married are no longer married, end of story. You can justify it in your own minds by coming up with little qualifications that you think caused the marriage to never occur in the first place if you like.

I’ll accept your concept of annulments once you tell me how many Catholics there are today who think they are married but actually aren’t and are living their entire life as a lie before man and God.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe

the annulment process. I know exactly what it is.

The bottom line is two people who were married are no longer married, end of story.

The first statement contradicts your second statement. The teaching on annulment does not say “you are no longer married.” It says, rather, “you were never married.”

I’ll accept your concept of annulments once you tell me how many Catholics there are today who think they are married but actually aren’t and are living their entire life as a lie before man and God.

This sounds like those athiest arguments ad absurdum that bases a belief system on the most ludicrous set of conditions. Seriously, what effect would it have if you knew how many people are not actually married? And what actual business is it of yours if some people are validly married or not? Your “argument” is simply evading the issue. It certainly would not negate the truth of the patristic teaching on annulments.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The difference between artificial contraception and natural contraception:

Artificial contraception seeks to prevent God’s intention for the sperm to meet with the egg DURING THE SEXUAL ACT.

Does natural contraception do that? NO.

It’s simple. Artificial contraception violates God’s Natural law.

But I have a question for my Eastern Orthodox brethren: Do you believe that artificial contraception is a sin in all circumstances?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

The teaching on annulment does not say “you are no longer married.” It says, rather, “you were never married.”

Yeah. Retroactively. :nope:

Your “argument” is simply evading the issue.

His argument is completely valid. Annulments are a legalistic system to justify divorce by allowing the Church to proclaim, (retroactively) that the marriage was never valid to begin with.

 

[PrayforMallory]

The more I learn about the Orthodox the less I admire them. Years ago, I admired them immensely. Now knowing that they allow artificial birth control is blowing my mind. And they allow divorce also? In 50 years are they going to allow abortion and gay marriage the host of other evils that some High Church Protestants allow?

Do they Orthodox want to contracept themselves into extinction or something? I always thought the Orthodox were more traditional than us. I’m astounded to find out that I’m wrong.

 

[Mickey]

The difference between artificial contraception and natural contraception:

Artificial contraception seeks to prevent God’s intention for the sperm to meet with the egg DURING THE SEXUAL ACT.
Does natural contraception do that? NO.

The answer is yes. NFP, (as a means of birth control) being more effective than most ABC’s, defeats the act of sperm meeting egg–hence contraception.

 

[Mickey]

The more I learn about the Orthodox the less I admire them. Years ago, I admired them immensely. Now knowing that they allow artificial birth control is blowing my mind. And they allow divorce also? In 50 years are they going to allow abortion and gay marriage the host of other evils that some High Church Protestants allow?

Do they Orthodox want to contracept themselves into extinction or something? I always thought the Orthodox were more traditional than us. I’m astounded to find out that I’m wrong.

You know nothing of Holy Orthodoxy. Holy Orthodoxy does not “believe in artificial birth control” and She does not “believe in divorce”. As an Eastern Catholic I was told by individual priests that there are circumstances where birth control (condoms specifically) may be permitted for a couple. Other very liberal Catholic priests will condone all forms of ABC and even abortion!!! Polls of Catholics show that they overwhelmingly believe and practice ABC. But you will say that it is NOT what the Church teaches. So stop throwing stones.

Regarding divorce: I will always believe that the Catholic annulment is a legalistic system for granting ecclesiatical divorces en mass.

 

[Petergee]

Almost invariably when someone acuses others of being “legalistic”, it means he knows and is trying to hide the fact that he is doing something illegal.

 

[Mickey]

Almost invariably when someone acuses others of being “legalistic”, it means he knows and is trying to hide the fact that he is doing something illegal.

 

[Jennifer_J]

NFP is licit to use by Catholics, not because it’s “natural” or whatever, it’s because NFP allows the 2 aspects of the marital embrace to stay intact: procreative and unitive. Procreative doesn’t mean FERTILE, it means that the act remains unaltered from it’s natural state. NFP is birth control, which the Catholic Church isn’t against. The Church is against contraception, which are chemicals or barriers that remove the procreative aspect of sex from the unitive. The act is altered and NOT in it’s natural state. It is not sinful to NOT have sex, most of us aren’t doing that right now, I’d hope . It is not sinful to have sex when the woman or man is (naturally) infertile. It is not sinful to have sex when the woman is in menopause. It is not sinful to have sex when the woman is not ovulating.
NFP is the alternative to TOTAL abstinence, not to contraception.

 

[Mickey]

NFP is birth control

Yes.

The Church is against contraception, which are chemicals or barriers that remove the procreative aspect of sex from the unitive.

I am confused. Contraception defeats the procreative act–correct? If NFP is a more effective contraceptive than condoms–why is it approved by the Catholic Church? Is there an infallible statement from the papacy which condones NFP?

The act is altered and NOT in it’s natural state.

Yes. The **ACT **is altered.

It is not sinful to have sex when the woman or man is (naturally) infertile. It is not sinful to have sex when the woman is in menopause. It is not sinful to have sex when the woman is not ovulating.

Are there infallible statements to support this?

 

[Peter_J]

Well said, Jennifer J.

 

[Peter_J]

I apologize to mark a, I meant no offense. That being said I just can’t wrap my head around the mindset of Roman Catholics. It’s my frustration that sometimes drives my less than charitable attitude.

Catholics look at things with such a legalistic mindset. Whether you use contraception or NFP the intent is exactly the same, preventing a pregnancy.

I agree with you in part. I do think there’s a legalistic mindset among a lot of Catholics; but I don’t think it lies in the rejection of contraception, but rather in the unqualified acceptance of NFP – I mean accepting it as the norm rather than accepting it as allowable under economy.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ll accept your concept of annulments once you tell me how many Catholics there are today who think they are married but actually aren’t and are living their entire life as a lie before man and God.

If a couple sincerely believes they are married, then I wouldn’t call that living a lie.

Regarding divorce: I will always believe that the Catholic annulment is a legalistic system for granting ecclesiatical divorces en mass.

It may sometimes be that in practice …

 

[Mickey]

I agree with you in part. I do think there’s a legalistic mindset among a lot of Catholics; but I don’t think it lies in the rejection of contraception, but rather in the unqualified acceptance of NFP – I mean accepting it as the norm rather than accepting it as allowable under economy.

Yes.

 

[Peter_J]

what is so pathetic about christian acceptance of contraception is that it was universally condemened by christianity until the anglicans allowed in in marriage back in the 20’s. contraception has been around forever.

I remember hearing once that, among Protestants, one of the last hold-outs (last to accept contraception that is) were the Lutherans. Does anyone know if that’s correct?

 

[PrayforMallory]

You know nothing of Holy Orthodoxy.

This is true. Because of this thread I actually wish I knew even less.

Holy Orthodoxy does not “believe in artificial birth control” and She does not “believe in divorce”.

I didn’t say that. Take another look at my post. I merely said they “allowed” them, which is a statement based entirely on the posts of Orthodox Christians on this thread.

As an Eastern Catholic I was told by individual priests that there are circumstances where birth control (condoms specifically) may be permitted for a couple.

I don’t doubt this at all.

Other very liberal Catholic priests will condone all forms of ABC and even abortion!!! Polls of Catholics show that they overwhelmingly believe and practice ABC.

This is true. A priest I knew told me to make my own decision on it.

But you will say that it is NOT what the Church teaches.

And I would be right.

So stop throwing stones.

Who’s throwing stones? Contracept if you want. To me it’s just caving in. I don’t really know why acknowledging the fact that many priests are rebellious and sticking to the teaching anyway amounts to “throwing stones.”

Regarding divorce: I will always believe that the Catholic annulment is a legalistic system for granting ecclesiatical divorces en mass.

That’s fine. I’m sure that’s how it is in practice in a lot of the U.S. I have to "throw stones’ on this one though and say that it isn’t right. An annulment is not the dissolution of a valid marriage. Just because it functions as a type of “Catholic Divorce” in a lot of places doesn’t mean that that’s what it is in principle.

Go in peace, and don’t worry about it, because there’s a 0% chance that an online thread is going to change your mind on these issues.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Yes.
I am confused. Contraception defeats the procreative act–correct? If NFP is a more effective contraceptive than condoms–why is it approved by the Catholic Church? Is there an infallible statement from the papacy which condones NFP?
Yes. The **ACT **is altered.
Are there infallible statements to support this?

Contraception means AGAINST conception. When I have used NFP I’m not stopping conception. I am using the naturally nonfertile part of my cycle to avoid conception–I can do this whether I know it’s fertile or not, because it’s licit to have marital relations during ALL parts of a woman’s cycle. Effectiveness has no bearing on whether a method of controlling births is licit or not. It’s the ACTION of the method. Total abstinence is a licit method of birth control. So is periodic abstinence. The ACT is not altered in the use of NFP–it is as God intended the ACT to happen. All forms of CONTRACEPTION alter the act–rendering it infertile.

The CCC speaks of periodic continence:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm
<<2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160 >>
This references:
Humane Vitae and Familiaris consortio

NFP is consistant with Church teaching, though certainly a couple doesn’t have to use NFP but can let children come as they will…NFP should only be used with just or serious reasons…

 

[josephdaniel29]

The difference between artificial contraception and natural contraception:

Artificial contraception seeks to prevent God’s intention for the sperm to meet with the egg DURING THE SEXUAL ACT.

Does natural contraception do that? NO.

That’s ridiculous. So having sex only when there is no egg present is not seeking to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg? If you’re not trying to prevent a pregnancy why do it in the first place?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The answer is yes. NFP, (as a means of birth control) being more effective than most ABC’s, defeats the act of sperm meeting egg–hence contraception.

So not having sex is a form of CONTRACEPTION? What nonsense is spewing from your fingertips!

With NFP, you allow the Holy Spirit, The Lord the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, to act in the arena in which He has chosen to create new souls. Contraception does not allow this; it shuts of the door to Him.

I know this stuff isn’t over your head so stop suggesting not having sex is a form of contraception.