The Harm Caused by Excessive Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and Other Denominations

[prodromos]

You are, presumably, speaking of Orthodox practice here. Which essentially means contraception is allowed because pastoral concern usually trumps everything else, and would not be ‘rare’.

That isn't my experience. Every Orthodox priest I've known has recommended abstinence.

Pretty much how I understood Orthodox teaching all along. They caved on contraception.

Yet the Catholic Church actually endorses a form of contraception.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Doesn't the Catholic Church allow the "Rhythm Method" as a means for married couples to engage in intercourse while minimising the chance of conceiving? Is that not the meaning of contra-ception?

The rhythm method is also called natural family planning. It may be used for grave reasons, but is not the norm as some would make it out to be
The teaching of the Church is marital chastity, which means that the marital act is to be performed with proper intent. The book of Tobit gives a great illustration. Seven men died in the bridal chamber because they did not have proper intent, and though widowed seven times, the woman remained a virgin
I agree that society and many in Catholic circles have lost the meaning of marriage and placed more emphasis on the wedding ceremony rather than the marriage itself, but that is not the teaching
Natural family planning uses timing as to attempt to limit the number of births, but places no artificial barrier to conception. All women’s menstrual cycles are different and if is prone to error. Natural family planning is even the most mocked of practices as it often fails to prevent birth, and should not be used by those that have a “contraceptive mindset”
The feminist movement has done great damage to the sacrament of marriage and I would be very wary of marrying a woman that said she did not want children right away and wanted to begin with natural family planning. That would still be holding back and not wishing the two become one flesh
The fact that many Catholics do not understand the teaching or fail to practice marital chastity does not invalidate the teaching

I wanted to know the Orthodox teaching or Orthodox opinion on the matter

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Basically, I just apply critical sauce to bizarre beliefs wherever I find them. I don't care if they're in this church, or that church, the local rotary club, or in grandma's little Wiccan tea cup party. I'll call it like I see it when I see it.

And if people don't like it, that's just too bad. They need to get educated.

--Copernicus.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That isn't my experience. Every Orthodox priest I've known has recommended abstinence.

Yet some priests will endorse contraception? And there is nothing wrong in their doing so? For ‘pastoral reasons’? That’s big enough to drive a bus through. The Anglican exception at the 1930 Lambeth Conference was equally small and eventually all of the Protestant objections to contraception fell away and it’s only a rare Protestant that even remembers that Protestants haven’t always endorsed contraception. So short their memories.

Yet the Catholic Church actually endorses a form of contraception.

Um, no. Actually it is abstinence during a fertile period. That is what natural family planning is in either the Billings Method or the Symptothermal Method. You decide to abstain or not based on knowledge of when ovulation is expected. In your way of putting it abstention is contraception.

The Catholic Church has held the line in teaching on contraception, against the odds, just barely, even while most Catholics have given way and have used contraception. The Catholic situation is a mess on the ground, but Humanae Vitae was correct teaching. Even if wonderful pope Francis in his heart of hearts wanted to do away with it.

 

[prodromos]

Um, no. Actually it is abstinence during a fertile period

If the purpose is to be able to engage in sexual intercourse without conceiving, it is contraception.

Yet some priests will endorse contraception? And there is nothing wrong in their doing so? For ‘pastoral reasons’?

A pastoral reason would be if the wife had a medical condition where pregnancy would put her life at risk. I don't know what pastoral reasons you might be thinking of.

 

[JSRG]

If the purpose is to be able to engage in sexual intercourse without conceiving, it is contraception.

Do you consider sexual relations with someone who is pregnant, or someone who is infertile, to be contraception on this basis?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

If the purpose is to be able to engage in sexual intercourse without conceiving, it is contraception.

A pastoral reason would be if the wife had a medical condition where pregnancy would put her life at risk. I don't know what pastoral reasons you might be thinking of.

I agree that if it is done with contraceptive intent, it is contraception, but that is not what the Church teaches. The proper use is to space births for grave reasons, not the whim of the couples

Medical reason for pastoral council sounds like the abortionist argument, rape, incest or life of the mother. If a woman cannot medically tolerate a pregnancy, it does not make grave evil then moral. That is false counsel as proscribed in the verses from Ezekiel. Contraception fails, if the mother gets pregnant do you then abort aka throw the seed to Molech? The blood is on the person that offers that pastoral counsel
If Orthodox do this, I am disappointed

If the woman’s life would truly be at risk, the moral counsel is to stop having intercourse or assume the risk of pregnancy, not God’s law would result in evil for you, so it is ok to do evil before God in this instance. That is absurd

 

[chevyontheriver]

If the purpose is to be able to engage in sexual intercourse without conceiving, it is contraception.

But the purpose is to abstain from sexual intercourse for a period of time, which involves no contraception at all.

Engaging in sexual intercourse and actively preventing conception, that is contraception.

 

[stevevw]

I am putting my head into the early church and its evolution from a Jewish sect to the Gentiles. Especially in the first couple of centuries. We see Paul setting up churches in Jerusalem, Syria and Antioch to Ephesus and as far away as Corinth and Arabia. He is also appointing others who do the same.

From memory I think the apostle Andrew was involved in setting up churches in the area of Romania and Georgia. Mark is traditionally associated with the Coptic church in Alexandria and Thomas is also linked to the Church of the East. So the East has as long a history as the West really.

I could imagine if Christ said go out to all the nations that this is exactly what they did. Using Pauls model we can see how appointing others to be overseers quickly embedded the same basic church that was a universal church at that time.

I think like the West it is later that we see the rise of the Gnostics and Montanists and others around the end of the 2nd century and into the 3rd where alternative movements were setting up a different doctrine based on the thinking of that time.

Which makes sense because by this time Greek philosophy was also influencing thinking and belief in the west. While the east had a different influence culturally.

But each I think can trace back to an apostolic succession from the time of Christ and soon afterwards. In that sense I think there is something significant in their histories that can be stood on with authority as opposed to the detractors and despite the bad history each may have.

 

[stevevw]

I think what we see today with the CC positions on matters of sex, marriage, and relationships generally is a matter of social norms now being so different to those in the past. There is more of a contrast today between the two positions that the old position seems unreal and outdated.

But I think in the early church this was a different worldview. Its was not about self fullfiment and pleasure. In fact this was seen as evil. So I would imagine sex was only within marriage and was really only for procreation. There was no contraception and yet they managed.

Paul mentions that it is greater that a man not be maried to do Gods work and that there were many widows and virgins who were pure and represented Christ.

I would imagine abstinance was a big part of this. At the same time the reality of the power of sex was recognised. Paul mentions for young couples to marry if they cannot put off their urges. But it seems all this was done out of love, sacrificial love rather than anything about self satisfaction or fullfillment.

We live in a different time and thinking and therefore this makes any attempt to stand on those basic principles for marriage and sexual relations seem out of date.

But I think there is a movement that is rising in the CC where many are returning to those basic principles.

 

[prodromos]

There was no contraception and yet they managed.

There are probably a great many natural contraceptives that were known in those times which we moderns, with our reliance on pharmaceuticals, have forgotten. Do you know that eating a lot of peas has a negative impact on fertility, both for men and women?

 

[stevevw]

There are probably a great many natural contraceptives that were known in those times which we moderns, with our reliance on pharmaceuticals, have forgotten. Do you know that eating a lot of peas has a negative impact on fertility, both for men and women?

Yes and probably also just avoiding sex during the fertile periods each month. But I still don't think there was as much a priority of sex being a personal pleasure. Generally self indulgence and pleasure was frowned upon.

It was a different mindset and less hedonistic I think as today where everything is about the individuals experiences and feelings being met and accommodated as a means to fullfillment and happiness.

The marriage itself becomes the sort of fairy tale that never lives up to expectations and then becomes a contract for what one can get out of it and to ensure everyones rights are protected. .

 

[prodromos]

Yes and probably also just avoiding sex during the fertile periods each month. But I still don't think there was as much a priority of sex being a personal pleasure. Generally self indulgence and pleasure was frowned upon.

It was a different mindset and less hedonistic I think as today where everything is about the individuals experiences and feelings being met and accommodated as a means to fullfillment and happiness.

The marriage itself becomes the sort of fairy tale that never lives up to expectations and then becomes a contract for what one can get out of it and to ensure everyones rights are protected. .

Are you talking about the Christians of that time or the general population? Either way, I believe you have a bit of an unrealistic view of the culture of that time.

 

[stevevw]

Are you talking about the Christians of that time or the general population? Either way, I believe you have a bit of an unrealistic view of the culture of that time.

Yes I am talking about Christians at that time in the early church. Not sure its unrealistic because they actually lived it. So I think we are capable. Its just a matter of what the social norms are.

Its a lot harder to say promote abstinence today with social norms that promote sex whenever. Compared to the early church or even 75 odd years ago when getting pregnant out of wedlock was taboo socially.

It only seems unreal from the modern day perspective because we have probably had around 60 years now of a sexual revolution that began during the mid 20th century.

I mean now divorse is accepted like cancelling your insurance, marriage is less respected fullstop and many don't even bother. So there no real destinction anymore about sex within or without marriage. That tells us how much the sacredness of marriage has been deminished over that time.

Even to the point where if someone did abstain or couples remained virgins before marriage this would be seen as weird and there must be something wrong that these couples are being brain washed by religion.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The biggest criticism I would make against popery is the extreme and regular violence it used against the saints.

How many billion people have they killed again? You know you want to reveal your numbers/

And what is more worrying is they would do it again if they got the chance.

Ready, willing, able, and itching to do it. Right?

I pray popery never gets that level of power again.

It never had that level of power. Just to clue you in.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Nah! These attacks are absolutely necessary to maintain Biblical Separation. I mean, "Come out from her". We have to maintain our separation. So we have to keep attacking. God clearly wills it, no matter how badly you misread John 17. It's a 'must'.

This was satire! And yet somebody 'likes' it as if agreeing!!!!

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Yes I am talking about Christians at that time in the early church. Not sure its unrealistic because they actually lived it. So I think we are capable. Its just a matter of what the social norms are.

Its a lot harder to say promote abstinence today with social norms that promote sex whenever. Compared to the early church or even 75 odd years ago when getting pregnant out of wedlock was taboo socially.

It only seems unreal from the modern day perspective because we have probably had around 60 years now of a sexual revolution that began during the mid 20th century.

I mean now divorse is accepted like cancelling your insurance, marriage is less respected fullstop and many don't even bother. So there no real destinction anymore about sex within or without marriage. That tells us how much the sacredness of marriage has been deminished over that time.

Even to the point where if someone did abstain or couples remained virgins before marriage this would be seen as weird and there must be something wrong that these couples are being brain washed by religion.

I always find it interesting when people engage in arguments like this that they say it was a different culture and such and such doesn’t understand what it was like to be in that culture, etc, etc

We are taking about God here, and He has established His norms. He said that if one even looks at a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery in his heart. Adultery is a sin punishable by eternal hell fire as scripture tells us adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven. That is God’s point
Those that have committed adultery can enter the kingdom of heaven if they repent. As Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, go away and don’t sin anymore. He did not say, just believe in me and even if you keep committing adultery I’ll let you into heaven. That is absurd.
Christ calls us to follow Him, not stay where we are or make excuses for why we can’t follow Him.
Jesus shot down everyone that made an excuse as to why they could not follow Him. Let the dead bury their dead, follow thou me
We are not to care what “everyone else is doing” and us that as an excuse for breaking God’s law. That excuse is not going to work at the throne of grace. The only thing that matters is if we follow Jesus, and that is to deny ourselves, not make excuses for our sinful desires or worse yet indulge them. We need to take the attitude of the woman caught in adultery, go away and don’t sin anymore. God is not mocked, He means what He says and societal norms have no bearing on the truth of the matter
As an example, an atheist at Oxford university did a study in the 1930s called Sex and Culture.
The man’s name was J D Unwin, and he studied about 89 cultures since the beginning of civilization, and he found that societies that accepted loose sexual morals collapsed within three generations. This is true particularly if the norm of premarital chastity is abandoned
We are nearing the end or beginning the third generation since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and few can argue that society is not collapsing. No one, including myself, has a stable family, and if we have a single family, there is no interaction with cousins, aunts and uncles anymore.
If you do have that, then God bless you, but let me ask you, do they practice marital charity or endorse loose morals or “free love”? The large happy families that know are Catholic ones. My best friend and his wife have eleven kids and I envy them.

Do not speak as though things are different today. Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever, and Solomon tells us that there is nothing new under the sun. Whatever is done has been done before.
The question is will we follow society into perdition, or will we repent, deny our very selves and follow Jesus in reverence and love, not lip service as we cling to worldly norms?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

This was satire! And yet somebody 'likes' it as if agreeing!!!!

And that surprises you how? Demons are smarter than us and can manipulate emotions to make evil seem good. Why do you think it is written in scripture, Woe to those that call evil good and good evil? Isaiah 5:20
It is also written that the says are coming when they will kill you, thinking they are doing me a service John 16:2

 

[stevevw]

I always find it interesting when people engage in arguments like this that they say it was a different culture and such and such doesn’t understand what it was like to be in that culture, etc, etc

We are taking about God here, and He has established His norms. He said that if one even looks at a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery in his heart. Adultery is a sin punishable by eternal hell fire as scripture tells us adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven. That is God’s point
Those that have committed adultery can enter the kingdom of heaven if they repent. As Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, go away and don’t sin anymore. He did not say, just believe in me and even if you keep committing adultery I’ll let you into heaven. That is absurd.
Christ calls us to follow Him, not stay where we are or make excuses for why we can’t follow Him.
Jesus shot down everyone that made an excuse as to why they could not follow Him. Let the dead bury their dead, follow thou me
We are not to care what “everyone else is doing” and us that as an excuse for breaking God’s law. That excuse is not going to work at the throne of grace. The only thing that matters is if we follow Jesus, and that is to deny ourselves, not make excuses for our sinful desires or worse yet indulge them. We need to take the attitude of the woman caught in adultery, go away and don’t sin anymore. God is not mocked, He means what He says and societal norms have no bearing on the truth of the matter
As an example, an atheist at Oxford university did a study in the 1930s called Sex and Culture.
The man’s name was J D Unwin, and he studied about 89 cultures since the beginning of civilization, and he found that societies that accepted loose sexual morals collapsed within three generations. This is true particularly if the norm of premarital chastity is abandoned
We are nearing the end or beginning the third generation since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and few can argue that society is not collapsing. No one, including myself, has a stable family, and if we have a single family, there is no interaction with cousins, aunts and uncles anymore.
If you do have that, then God bless you, but let me ask you, do they practice marital charity or endorse loose morals or “free love”? The large happy families that know are Catholic ones. My best friend and his wife have eleven kids and I envy them.

Do not speak as though things are different today. Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever, and Solomon tells us that there is nothing new under the sun. Whatever is done has been done before.
The question is will we follow society into perdition, or will we repent, deny our very selves and follow Jesus in reverence and love, not lip service as we cling to worldly norms?

I think from what I sense your saying that you may have misunderstood what I said. I am agreeing with you. I am saying that some make the rationalisation that Christ church has to change with the times. I am saying its the same yesterday, today and tommorrow.

That the church stood its ground in the early church regardless of the surrounding culture and thats why many of its leaders were executed by pagan Rome.

It is becoming a bit similar today where the surrounding culture is becoming Godless and pagan like. Its hard to tell some churches from the surrounding secular norms. But like the early church those who continue to stay true and follow Gods norms and Christ to the end no matter what will be saved.

 

[Grafted In]

I did not read this entire thread, perhaps another has quoted
Mark 9:38-40.
Let one another be.