Birth Control Methods

[abacabb3]

I used to believe that sex can only be used for procreation and it's not supposed to be enjoyed, to my wife's chagrin. Then, she told me that sex can be used to bring us closer (her love language is physical touch at #1), and that even Chrysostom stated that sex can be used as a means to grow closer together. So, who knows? All I know is that our marriage has been better, and that she feels more loved as a result.

Obviously these two principles don't contradict. However, having sex using birth control methods may achieve feeling "closer," but not be conducive to procreation. This is a contradiction.

The correct approach is the one with no contradiction.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Obviously these two principles don't contradict. However, having sex using birth control methods may achieve feeling "closer," but not be conducive to procreation. This is a contradiction.

The correct approach is the one with no contradiction.

We don't use birth control.

Speaking of birth control, that was the origin of the term "scumbag."

 

[nutroll]

It's funny when we find fathers saying things we do not like, we often try to find another father to invalidate what he says instead of harmonzing their statements. As for Saint John Chrysostom, he agrees 100% with St Gregory Palamas:

Nor again did He abolish all desire, but only that which is unlawful, for he saith, “Nevertheless, because of desires, let every man have his own wife.” But to lay up treasure He allowed not, either with cause or without. For those passions were implanted in our nature for a necessary end; desire, for the procreation of children, and anger, for the succor of the injured, but desire of money not so. (Homily 23 on 2 Corinthians)

Palamas, having seen the uncreated light, was literally divinized by God. He didn't screw theological things up.

Are you suggesting then that the sole reason for anger is to succor the injured? Or is it also for us to be angry against sin itself, or to be angry at the demons who tempt us? I think this is a misreading of Saint John Chrysostom in order to invalidate Saint John Chrysostom. Desire is implanted in our nature because it's necessary for the procreation of children, but that does not necessarily mean that it is for this purpose and this purpose alone. Given that anger and sexual desire are spoken of in the same sentence, I fail to see why we would interpret them differently. One must have desire to beget children, and one must have anger to succor the injured. They are necessary in that sense but not the sole purpose for their existence.

 

[All4Christ]

It's funny when we find fathers saying things we do not like, we often try to find another father to invalidate what he says instead of harmonzing their statements. As for Saint John Chrysostom, he agrees 100% with St Gregory Palamas:

Nor again did He abolish all desire, but only that which is unlawful, for he saith, “Nevertheless, because of desires, let every man have his own wife.” But to lay up treasure He allowed not, either with cause or without. For those passions were implanted in our nature for a necessary end; desire, for the procreation of children, and anger, for the succor of the injured, but desire of money not so. (Homily 23 on 2 Corinthians)

Palamas, having seen the uncreated light, was literally divinized by God. He didn't screw theological things up.

St John says that desire was allowed for the procreation of children, but that doesn’t equate to procreation being the sole purpose of procreation. I agree with nutroll here and with ArmyMatt’s comments, who both happen to be priests. (I also listen to what my spiritual father taught us.)

With your understanding in mind, then it follows that unless you are still trying to have children, you should stop having sex once a wife is menopausal. The same would go for people who are definitively infertile, perhaps by a medically necessary hysterectomy or some similar result from a medical condition. How does that work in relation to 1 Corinthians 7:1-7?

 

[rusmeister]

my Godfather would say (in addition to chastity) that oneness and procreation are the purposes of sex, and therefore require lifetime commitment. so yes, being one with your spouse is one of its purposes and you should draw together over a lifetime.

I agree, and think that what Heers was driving at is that both should turn together more towards God, and that the flesh and its desires should become ever less important and necessary.

 

[rusmeister]

St John says that desire was allowed for the procreation of children, but that doesn’t equate to procreation being the sole purpose of procreation. I agree with nutroll here and with ArmyMatt’s comments, who both happen to be priests. (I also listen to what my spiritual father taught us.)

With your understanding in mind, then it follows that unless you are still trying to have children, you should stop having sex once a wife is menopausal. The same would go for people who are definitively infertile, perhaps by a medically necessary hysterectomy or some similar result from a medical condition. How does that work in relation to 1 Corinthians 7:1-7?

The “should” (stop “having sex”), as I understand it, is subordinate to what Heers was saying about the weaker partner. Abstain from what you can. The principle of all fasting is not force, but a bar we should at least begin to want to reach up to. Realizing that we can say “no” to ourselves and don’t NEED things that we desire, and we can begin to offer those things up to God so that He can give us something better. And it requires effort, is not easy, and we are weak.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I agree, and think that what Heers was driving at is that both should turn together more towards God, and that the flesh and its desires should become ever less important and necessary.

Fr Hopko used to say that was the fallen ideal. the physical act of sex, when done in love, brings husband and wife together so intimately, that their bond goes much deeper.

 

[rusmeister]

Fr Hopko used to say that was the fallen ideal. the physical act of sex, when done in love, brings husband and wife together so intimately, that their bond goes much deeper.

That may be. I just don’t trust any one Orthodox hierarch or saint on his or her own. It is only when they are agreeing with all of the others that I find any certainty on teaching.

 

[Platina]

I used to believe that sex can only be used for procreation and it's not supposed to be enjoyed, to my wife's chagrin. Then, she told me that sex can be used to bring us closer (her love language is physical touch at #1), and that even Chrysostom stated that sex can be used as a means to grow closer together. So, who knows? All I know is that our marriage has been better, and that she feels more loved as a result.

There's no doubt that it's an ideal to have relations without the passion of the pleasure. The Church teaches us that Sts. Joachim and Anna were able to give birth to the All-Pure Theotokos because they came together and had relations solely for the sake of procreation, and not at all for pleasure. That doesn't mean everyone can live up to that standard, but our weakness is no reason to do away with the standard.

 

[Platina]

I have to generally disagree, EC.
While obedience to bishops IS the general rule, there IS Orthodox precedent for disobedience to bishops - when bishops teach against the consensus of our Tradition. I have seen hierarchs and bishops in both the Greek and Russian Churches say and do despicable things that tempt me to toss faith altogether. But I have not, generally seen, open calls to disobey bishops. The priests in my former town have been punished, by the hierarchy, simply for saying that the violence of brother against brother is a bad thing. But none called for any disobedience to the hierarchs.

Having finally watched the video (I am in survival mode as a refugee, and working the equivalent of two full-time jobs just to make ends meet), I have to say that Heers is pretty solid. I thought maybe you meant that he was calling for disobedience to bishops, and found nothing of the sort in the video.

Heers lays out the unpopular ideal, and then repeatedly stresses that it cannot be imposed by others, but must be desired by the person who wants to grow closer to God, and that most can only domthis gradually, through struggle, and even, without condescension, sacrificing that asceticism in love for the sake of the weaker person they are yoked to. For we must admit that giving in to our carnal desires, as such, is weakness, and not spiritual strength. But he makes it clear that we do what we can, and doesn’t impose an external demand for absolute monastic chastity.

So while questions around that struggle are indeed pastoral, some things are not, and speaking as a general rule (excluding the use of a preparation like the pill for actual medical relief of actual suffering), the pill is not something that a pastor should grant pastorally, because it works so strongly against our Tradition, in which the effort to “control birth” - which nearly always means preventing it - is seen as playing God, deciding who will be born, and when. The consensus of the fathers is pretty clear that all blessed sexual union should be open to procreation, and “birth control” is aimed at closing out that procreation. Too many Orthodox pastors now lack the basic discernment to see that, and as Fr Matt pointed out, the result is massive, widespread abuse of economia, leading people to believe that what ought to be an extreme exception is the norm of Church teaching when in fact it is not. And so we fall further and further away from the Christian ideal.

Fr. Peter's video is excellent, and certainly dispels the persistent myth that he's some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth fundy, which anyone who knows him or has watched his videos knows isn't true.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That may be. I just don’t trust any one Orthodox hierarch or saint on his or her own. It is only when they are agreeing with all of the others that I find any certainty on teaching.

no one ever said you should trust one hierarch or saint on his own, and no one is doing that on this thread.

 

[E.C.]

I have to generally disagree, EC.
While obedience to bishops IS the general rule, there IS Orthodox precedent for disobedience to bishops - when bishops teach against the consensus of our Tradition. I have seen hierarchs and bishops in both the Greek and Russian Churches say and do despicable things that tempt me to toss faith altogether. But I have not, generally seen, open calls to disobey bishops. The priests in my former town have been punished, by the hierarchy, simply for saying that the violence of brother against brother is a bad thing. But none called for any disobedience to the hierarchs.

Having finally watched the video (I am in survival mode as a refugee, and working the equivalent of two full-time jobs just to make ends meet), I have to say that Heers is pretty solid. I thought maybe you meant that he was calling for disobedience to bishops, and found nothing of the sort in the video.

Heers lays out the unpopular ideal, and then repeatedly stresses that it cannot be imposed by others, but must be desired by the person who wants to grow closer to God, and that most can only domthis gradually, through struggle, and even, without condescension, sacrificing that asceticism in love for the sake of the weaker person they are yoked to. For we must admit that giving in to our carnal desires, as such, is weakness, and not spiritual strength. But he makes it clear that we do what we can, and doesn’t impose an external demand for absolute monastic chastity.

So while questions around that struggle are indeed pastoral, some things are not, and speaking as a general rule (excluding the use of a preparation like the pill for actual medical relief of actual suffering), the pill is not something that a pastor should grant pastorally, because it works so strongly against our Tradition, in which the effort to “control birth” - which nearly always means preventing it - is seen as playing God, deciding who will be born, and when. The consensus of the fathers is pretty clear that all blessed sexual union should be open to procreation, and “birth control” is aimed at closing out that procreation. Too many Orthodox pastors now lack the basic discernment to see that, and as Fr Matt pointed out, the result is massive, widespread abuse of economia, leading people to believe that what ought to be an extreme exception is the norm of Church teaching when in fact it is not. And so we fall further and further away from the Christian ideal.

I don't want to derail the thread further here, so I will respond to you rusmeister, and then I will unsubscribe from this thread.

My issue with Fr Peter Heers comes down to a few things outside of this video.
1) he tried to dogmatize the COVID vaccine and related inconveniences
2) in doing so, he urged laity to "ignore your bishops, listen to the saints" which is ridiculous because the majority of the saints will say to listen to one's bishop
3) his ecclesiastical status has been, frankly, unclear for the last two years. While that may be above our paygrades, the fact that ROCOR had to release a statement earlier this month clarifying his status (officially not ROCOR) due to his online shenanigans is a bit ridiculous.
Outside of the ecclesiastical limbo, his online presence has attracted the sort of converts that give validity to the NPR article earlier this year about white supremacists joining ROCOR which has some truth to it given the lack of compassion and rampant racism and antisemitism found in American converts of ROCOR (not ALL converts in ALL of ROCOR's churches, but certainly more then a few proverbial bad eggs) and the antisemitism of ROCOR clergy. I, unfortunately, since moving to the DC area have encountered some of these people and all of them worship the ground that Fr Peter Heers walks on. I will admit that perhaps I should pay more attention to him then his followers, but his followers, coupled with his previous encouragements of disobedience, have caused me to have serious reservations about anything he may say no matter how correct and consistently Orthodox it may be. Karl Marx may have had a valid critique or two about Capitalism, but I'm certainly not going to jump and read his books after seeing what his followers have done since their publication.


While I do agree that there are times to correct our bishops when they are wrong, the COVID vaccine does not fall under any of the great heretical categories and I highly doubt that getting the vaccine is the "Mark of the Beast" despite what fundy's like Fr Peter Heers appear to desire. The bishops who punished your hometown priests for saying violence against brother Christians are indeed bishops who do need to be corrected, but sadly, from what I've seen of the Russian Church today it appears that she is becoming just as oppressive as the Bolsheviks claimed she was in 1917. There is a way to correct our bishops in the Orthodox Tradition (what that is escapes me at the moment), but telling the laity to jump ship and outright ignore anything they say just isn't it.

Finally,
The part about too many Orthodox pastors lacking the basic discernment; is something that I 100% agree with. It's a beautiful thing that so many Orthodox priests in America are converts (Lord help us if I become one), but far too many of them, I think, went to seminary too early and did not have sufficient time to allow the chrism to dry. I know of a priest who is an ex-Muslim and he thinks that any woman in church that doesn't look like a 19th century Russian peasant is "showy" and "flamboyant" despite the fact that many of the older generation in his own parish grew up in a time when you went to church in your Sunday best. I've run into another priest who doesn't believe in theosis. There's even a retired bishop running around this country who doesn't believe that the canons of the Ecumenical Councils are not 100% authoritative. All of them were converts. At the same time, there are equally a number of cradle Orthodox priests who didn't pay attention in seminary or became clergy for the wrong reasons (family legacy vs genuine desire) and are just as ignorant of this basic discernment. On both accounts, I blame our seminaries because they are not sufficiently training our priests for the pastoral side of the job.

 

[abacabb3]

St John says that desire was allowed for the procreation of children, but that doesn’t equate to procreation being the sole purpose of procreation. I agree with nutroll here and with ArmyMatt’s comments, who both happen to be priests. (I also listen to what my spiritual father taught us.)

Just because sex can be enjoyed and be part of marital bonding, that does not mean it could be deliberately divorced from procreation. I didn't see anything in Fr Matt's or Nutroll posting here that says otherwise.

I'll just reiterate what I have been saying all along: the ideal is not to divorce the procreative act from its purpose. If your spiritual father sees some sort of inherent weakness in you or your spouse's relationship, libido, or whatever else it is none of my business. But we do not find a single saint endorse sex irrespective of procreation. This is an absolute consensus of saints. So, pastoral applications falling from the ideal is one thing. To say the ideal does not exist or is incorrect is another.

I think when people take something simple and turn it into something complicated, this reveals that they know what they ought to be doing and just refuse to do so.

 

[abacabb3]

Fr. Peter's video is excellent, and certainly dispels the persistent myth that he's some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth fundy, which anyone who knows him or has watched his videos knows isn't true.

Honestly, his pastoral application by patristic standards would be excessively liberal. The fact that merely saying the ideal exists is "extreme" shows how badly in some quarters we have fallen.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'll just reiterate what I have been saying all along: the ideal is not to divorce the procreative act from its purpose. If your spiritual father sees some sort of inherent weakness in you or your spouse's relationship, libido, or whatever else it is none of my business. But we do not find a single saint endorse sex irrespective of procreation. This is an absolute consensus of saints. So, pastoral applications falling from the ideal is one thing. To say the ideal does not exist or is incorrect is another.

agreed. we must remember that for economia to exist in the first place (based on the circumstances or struggles of particular Christians which should be taken into account), the standard we should all shoot for is presupposed.

 

[All4Christ]

Just because sex can be enjoyed and be part of marital bonding, that does not mean it could be deliberately divorced from procreation. I didn't see anything in Fr Matt's or Nutroll posting here that says otherwise.

I'll just reiterate what I have been saying all along: the ideal is not to divorce the procreative act from its purpose. If your spiritual father sees some sort of inherent weakness in you or your spouse's relationship, libido, or whatever else it is none of my business. But we do not find a single saint endorse sex irrespective of procreation. This is an absolute consensus of saints. So, pastoral applications falling from the ideal is one thing. To say the ideal does not exist or is incorrect is another.

I think when people take something simple and turn it into something complicated, this reveals that they know what they ought to be doing and just refuse to do so.

My point is that procreation is not its ONLY purpose - which is easily shown from the saints. Simple as that.

In regards to the comments about my spiritual father - I wasn’t referencing anything about weaknesses, libido or anything like that. That’s way out of bounds for a forum. I was referencing what we were taught about marriage - not spiritual application to our circumstances.

Some parting thoughts as I unsubscribe from this thread:

True love in marriage supposes the bearing of children. Those who truly love in marriage will naturally have children as the fruit of their love and the greatest bond of their union. Those who despise children and refuse to offer them care and devotion do not truly love.

Of course there are those whose marriages will be childless because of some tragedy of nature brought on by the “sin of the world.” In such marriages perfect love can exist, but the mutual devotion in the service of God and man will take on other forms, either the adoption of children or some other good service for the sake of others, The childless marriage, either by voluntary choice or natural tragedy, which results in self-indulgence is not a spiritual union.

A truly Christian and spiritual marriage is one where true love abides. In the community of marriage true love is expressed in the total union of the couple in all that they are, have and do. It is the love of each one living completely for the good of the other, the love of erotic union in total oneness of mind, heart and flesh; the love of perfect friendship.(See “God is Love,” above).

Within such a community of love, the sexual act is the expression of all of this. It was created for this purpose by God. It is the intimate act which finds its total joy when perfected by those who are fully devoted and dedicated to each other in all things, in every way, forever. It is for this sacred and divine reason that the sexual act cannot be done casually or promiscuously for one’s own spiritual or bodily pleasure. It is the act of loving self-sacrifice in eternal fidelity. Only when accomplished in this way does it yield divine satisfaction and infinite delight to the lovers who enact it.

Sexual dissatisfaction in marriage is virtually never simply a bodily or biological problem. It is with almost no exception, the result of some defect of mind, heart and soul. Most basically, it is the defect of love itself. For when each considers only the good of the other, desiring total spiritual and bodily union in perfect friendship, the sexual act is always most satisfying. When this is absent, and something other is central, the gratification of some unworthy passion of body or mind, then all is lost and the perversion of love brings sadness and death to the union.

Normally the sexual act in marriage bears fruit in the procreation of children. The marriage ceremony in the Church prays for “chastity, a bed undefiled, the procreation of children, and for every earthly blessing that they may in turn bestow upon the needy.” The sexual act of love, however, is not limited merely to the bearing of children. It exists as well for the union in love and the mutual edification and joy of those who are married. If this were not the case, the Apostle Paul would not have given the following counsel:

. . . each man should have his own wife, and each wife her own husband. The husband should give the wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through each of self-control (1 Cor 7.2–5).

The apostle does not say that the married couple should be separated and come together only with intentions of bearing a child. He says rather that they should stay together, separating “by agreement, for a time,” and that for the purpose of being devoted “to prayer.” The words “by agreement” are central in this counsel, for each one must live totally as belonging to the other.

Sexuality in pure marriage is pure. For, as the apostle says in another context:

To the pure, all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. They profess to know God but they deny Him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed (Titus 1.15–16).

There are those whose marriages are impure because they are corrupt and unbelieving, unfit for any good deed. Even though they are married and the sexuality is, as they say, “legal,” nevertheless it is ungodly and impure. The fact that a couple is “legally” or even “sacramentally” married does not make their marital life pure and free from sinful passion, perversion and lust. Only those who truly live the spiritual life in genuine love and devotion have sexual lives that are holy and pure, mutually satisfying and fulfilling, and well-pleasing to God. This is guaranteed when the spiritual life is in Christ and the Church. But as Saint John Chrysostom has said, even heathen marriages are holy and pure when true love is present and the couples are eternally given to one another in unending fidelity and mutual devotion. For where such love is present, there is the presence of God.

 

[rusmeister]

Maybe I am speaking to empty air - who knows? But the purpose of this forum, as far as I can tell, is to discuss things regarding our Faith that we can’t discuss with the general public. And one of the central facts we discover in the Church is that, while we ought to be of one heart and one mind regarding what we ought to believe, what a growing experiential knowledge of God ought to be pointing us toward, we are not in fact of one heart and mind, we do not agree on a great many things. The wiser among us are, I suppose, for the most part silent; it seems like the best attitude one can hold when we see someone kicking against established teaching or practice, one of “You’ll understand when you are older”. If a man gets carried away with beards, big crosses, in a word, hyperdoxy, or a woman, conversely, rejects headcovering or that there is nothing wrong with “LGBTXYZ”, or whatever, to wait, pray, and hope they grow out of whatever they are rebelling against or trying to prove.

Unsubscribing is an understandable reaction to a sense of frustration that others do not agree with us, that we feel ourselves in some way to be in a minority. But it also means a final failure of disagreement in an attempted spirit of love in order to bring us to a common understanding, of one heart and mind. It’s a pity. Maybe we could, with patience, come to understand each other better. It’s something Chesterton has taught me more than anyone - to try to see where the people who we think wrong are actually right about something, and to make distinctions, not cast the views of others in excessively simple terms, and refuse to demonize them. We are all reactionary - some in a “conservative” direction as a reaction to the madness of modern anarchy in the name of “freedom”, especially sexual anarchy, while others, as we see, react to an excess of conservatism and hyperdoxy, and are turned off by what they see as zealotry, zeal gone bad.

I do think that we are all hypocritical about something or other, the very word means “insufficiently self-critical”, and we believe Church teachings until they step on something that we like, or hold dear, or just think nothing wrong with. We all come into the Church bearing baggage of this world, ideas and attitudes in need of correction, although, sadly, we think some of those ideas and attitudes to BE Church teaching. It seems that the right response to these conflicts between us should be patience - one of the harder virtues to cultivate; we want the kingdom of heaven and an end to the tragedies of the Fallen world NOW.

I could try to thoughtfully respond to what people have said, and could even attempt to point out that people who liked this particular video don’t even necessarily agree on all of the particulars, but if all who disliked it “jump ship”, so to speak, there doesn’t seem to be much point in discussing anything. Above all, we need to try to communicate, not naked moral precepts which sound angry and harsh (even if we do not intend to sound so) but the love we ought to have that ought to be the motivating factor behind why we speak.

 

[abacabb3]

My point is that procreation is not its ONLY purpose - which is easily shown from the saints. Simple as that.

In regards to the comments about my spiritual father - I wasn’t referencing anything about weaknesses, libido or anything like that. That’s way out of bounds for a forum. I was referencing what we were taught about marriage - not spiritual application to our circumstances.

Some parting thoughts as I unsubscribe from this thread:

We do not find a single saint endorse sex irrespective of procreation.

 

[All4Christ]

Maybe I am speaking to empty air - who knows? But the purpose of this forum, as far as I can tell, is to discuss things regarding our Faith that we can’t discuss with the general public. And one of the central facts we discover in the Church is that, while we ought to be of one heart and one mind regarding what we ought to believe, what a growing experiential knowledge of God ought to be pointing us toward, we are not in fact of one heart and mind, we do not agree on a great many things. The wiser among us are, I suppose, for the most part silent; it seems like the best attitude one can hold when we see someone kicking against established teaching or practice, one of “You’ll understand when you are older”. If a man gets carried away with beards, big crosses, in a word, hyperdoxy, or a woman, conversely, rejects headcovering or that there is nothing wrong with “LGBTXYZ”, or whatever, to wait, pray, and hope they grow out of whatever they are rebelling against or trying to prove.

Unsubscribing is an understandable reaction to a sense of frustration that others do not agree with us, that we feel ourselves in some way to be in a minority. But it also means a final failure of disagreement in an attempted spirit of love in order to bring us to a common understanding, of one heart and mind. It’s a pity. Maybe we could, with patience, come to understand each other better. It’s something Chesterton has taught me more than anyone - to try to see where the people who we think wrong are actually right about something, and to make distinctions, not cast the views of others in excessively simple terms, and refuse to demonize them. We are all reactionary - some in a “conservative” direction as a reaction to the madness of modern anarchy in the name of “freedom”, especially sexual anarchy, while others, as we see, react to an excess of conservatism and hyperdoxy, and are turned off by what they see as zealotry, zeal gone bad.

I do think that we are all hypocritical about something or other, the very word means “insufficiently self-critical”, and we believe Church teachings until they step on something that we like, or hold dear, or just think nothing wrong with. We all come into the Church bearing baggage of this world, ideas and attitudes in need of correction, although, sadly, we think some of those ideas and attitudes to BE Church teaching. It seems that the right response to these conflicts between us should be patience - one of the harder virtues to cultivate; we want the kingdom of heaven and an end to the tragedies of the Fallen world NOW.

I could try to thoughtfully respond to what people have said, and could even attempt to point out that people who liked this particular video don’t even necessarily agree on all of the particulars, but if all who disliked it “jump ship”, so to speak, there doesn’t seem to be much point in discussing anything. Above all, we need to try to communicate, not naked moral precepts which sound angry and harsh (even if we do not intend to sound so) but the love we ought to have that ought to be the motivating factor behind why we speak.

I came back due to having a response to my post and saw this.

Rus, I am getting nowhere with anything I say and I keep getting people saying that I said things I didn’t say. Some of the people I’m discussing things with won’t concede any points and it seems like I am talking to a wall. I stayed for several pages and I am getting told that I am straying from church teaching for saying there are more than one purposes of sexual intercourse. Seems like a simple thing that is absolutely supported by scripture and saints.

Beyond these thoughts, there are some personal reasons this is difficult for me to participate in more.

I have many many things I am wrong about, and by no means do I have the misconception that I know all the teachings of the Church or that I am an expert on the saints. I’m sure there are plenty of things that I think are church teaching that aren’t. I’m still learning.

All that said, just saying I was unsubscribing wasn’t the most mature way to leave the thread. I apologize to all who may have taken my comments to be harsh or for any missteps I have had.

 

[Platina]

We do not find a single saint endorse sex irrespective of procreation.

I haven't read all the comments here, so forgive me if I'm repeating something.

I completely agree with you that the Fathers, both East and West, place the emphasis on procreation, and often that is the only purpose that they speak about. Clement of Alexandria, for instance, essentially says, once you've had your share of children, you live like brother and sister. But don't forget that St. Paul himself says that marital relations are a means for avoiding falling into lust. Certainly even when relations occur in such situations, they must still be open to procreation. St. John Chrysostom does also talk about sex for the unity of the spouses, though honestly, as far as I'm aware, he's the only one who speaks this way, and again, sex for this purpose must still be open to procreation.

Certainly no Father says that //pleasure// is one of the God-given purposes of sex.