What is the Eastern Orthodox stand on abortion, human cloning, and so-called same-sex "marriage"?

[GaryTaylor]

The most significant opponent to birth control was and is the Catholic Church, its a documented historical fact.

 

[sainthumbert]

The policy of the Catholic Church on contraception has never changed. NFP, as taught by the Catholic Church, is basically what St. Paul taught when he said, “Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.” - 1 Corinthians 7:5

Do you have any literature that shows how this relates to NFP? To me, a straight reading of this could not be applied to NFP. St Paul says the abstaining can be legitimate for the purpose of devoting to prayer. It doesn’t say anything about abstaining to avoid children for a time.

 

[sainthumbert]

Many interpreted Pius XIs Casti Conubii as covering the Rhythm Method as well. It wasn’t until Pius XII where you had “clarification” and it evolved down to the present position.

01

I don’t see anything condemning NFP in Casti Connubii. Such an absolutely beautiful and inspiring work by the way.

1. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.
2. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
3. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

Notice that Paragraph 53 would have to be interpreted as condoning NFP rather than condemning it. Notice Paragraph 56 condemns the frustration of the act. Notice Paragraph 59 states that married couples do not sin when they use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons of time new life cannot be brought forth.

Casti Connubii seems to, if anything, condone NFP. It is certainly not, under any interpretation, the smoking gun that shows an inconsistency on the part of the Catholic Church regarding NFP.

 

[livingwordunity]

Do you have any literature that shows how this relates to NFP? To me, a straight reading of this could not be applied to NFP. St Paul says the abstaining can be legitimate for the purpose of devoting to prayer. It doesn’t say anything about abstaining to avoid children for a time.

The principle is that a married couple doesn’t always have to be trying to have children, and abstaining for a time is natural and good when the period involves prayer. Keep in mind as well that NFP isn’t only for the purpose of delaying pregnancy. NFP is also for helping women to get pregnant. And again, it’s absolutely natural. This is unlike the barrier that contraception puts between a husband and his wife and which is designed to produce a micro-abortion, has many serious side-effects, including death, and was universally believed to be a sin by every Christian church and denomination all the way up to 1930. Logically, if NFP were the same thing as contraception, the advocates of contraception would not be against it. From a CAF thread on the subject:

The periods of abstinence that NFP requires are a form of fasting. When NFP is practiced correctly, however, they should also be a time of prayer–that is, a time for discerning the family’s needs and abilities, and how this fits in with God’s will.

Any other interpretation leads to absurd results. Obviously, we can’t be having intercourse all of the time. (Source)

And, I recommend this:
General Audiences: John Paul II’s Theology of the Body