Contraception???

[Dorothea]

We were also using FAM (which I have used successfully in the past to both conceive and avoid) as well as barrier and I still became pregnant with this babe. Though I will still be happy to hold this child when he/she arrives, I'm done. I have another 15yrs of fertility given family history and I tend to have a child every other year. We also spoke with our Spiritual Father as we have always held very strong views in this area. So we may be opting for my getting snipped after this child.

Before I knew that certain contraceptive devices were not acceptable in the Church's teachings, after our second child, my husband got "snipped." I encouraged him to because I was afraid I would get pregnant again, and we were only using condoms from the beginning up to that time in our marriage. I feel bad talking him into it. He was all right with it after the fact, but I still feel I should tell my SF I kinda pushed him into it, even if I didn't know it was not right to do so at the time, I still will confess this to my SF. My SF knows that hubs had this done years ago because a couple years ago, in our adult ed. class, we were discussing contraception, and I told him then, and he said, "That's not 100% effective." And of course, that was years ago, and we didn't know, so my SF wasn't all over us about it. Anyhow, when I found out all about this stuff, I felt bad that I'd encouraged him to do this. Hubs doesn't feel sorry, but still, I will speak to my SF about it. It's interesting how that worked out in our lives, seeing the next several years, we spent in the hospital with our youngest son, watching him go through brain surgeries and radiation for his brain tumor. We really didn't have time to be thinking about having other children anyway.

 

[jckstraw72]

Command are you accusing St. John Chrysostom of Gnosticism?! thats totally absurd. the Patristic view about sex and marriage says nothing about disdaining the body or the physical world or anything like that.

 

[Crosscheck]

Honestly, I think another council should be held to bring some clarity to the issue. End of the third you cannot treat an urban soceity like a rural soceity. Children create surplus labor on farms, which is a positive thing. In an urban soceity children are a liability, and any family has only so many resources. Asking modern people to exercise self control when it comes to sex is a bit like putting a steak in a lion's cage and asking the lion not to eat it. I think the only realistic response is to steer people towards morally acceptable, or at least more morally acceptable, forms of birth control.

 

[Michael G]

Honestly, I think another council should be held to bring some clarity to the issue. End of the third you cannot treat an urban soceity like a rural soceity. Children create surplus labor on farms, which is a positive thing. In an urban soceity children are a liability, and any family has only so many resources. Asking modern people to exercise self control when it comes to sex is a bit like putting a steak in a lion's cage and asking the lion not to eat it. I think the only realistic response is to steer people towards morally acceptable, or at least more morally acceptable, forms of birth control.

Councils are called to deal with great heresies, not to deal with moral problems that people want to see updated from the ancient teaching. They are also called to deal with major messed that need cleaned up like the disapora problem in the United States. The issue of people wanting to see the birth controll question re-defined by the Church is not anywhere near searious enough for the Church to call an Ecumenical Council. The subject was dealt with in the 1st century. It is not the Church's fault if people do not want to obey it's teachings.

 

[Crosscheck]

Councils are called to deal with great heresies, not to deal with moral problems that people want to see updated from the ancient teaching. They are also called to deal with major messed that need cleaned up like the disapora problem in the United States. The issue of people wanting to see the birth controll question re-defined by the Church is not anywhere near searious enough for the Church to call an Ecumenical Council. The subject was dealt with in the 1st century. It is not the Church's fault if people do not want to obey it's teachings.

Funny, we can call one to address that fact the US is jurisdicationally confusing, but we can't to deal with the topic of birth control. I've ran into no shortage of Orthodox priests that see no problem with family planning and others that take a near Roman Catholic approach. It's certainly worthy of calling a council to address. Note: I said council, not ecumenical council. Not everything rises to that level, and with the western Church in schism I'm not sure you could call one to begin with.

Let's exercise a little critical thinking here: modern birth control didn't exist in the first century AD. So it's a little silly to think the topic has been addressed. One of the reasons we have a Church, and not just a rule book stamped good for all time, is to guide us in the here and now.

 

[Kristos]

Let's exercise a little critical thinking here: modern birth control didn't exist in the first century AD. So it's a little silly to think the topic has been addressed. One of the reasons we have a Church, and not just a rule book stamped good for all time, is to guide us in the here and now.

I think it was Rus who said it best...birth control is of the world, self control is of God.

It is immaterial what type of contraceptives existed in the 1st Century when the faith calls for self control not birth control.

 

[Protoevangel]

well since ive said nothing against the flesh or the physical world, and ive merely put forth waht i have read in teh Fathers ... you have no basis on which to call me Gnostic, but since you are, you're saying the Fathers are Gnostics, since my argument is straight from the Fathers I have read, as Kristos has agreed. Can you provide an argument from the Fathers that is contrary to what I have put forth? if so, I will certainly read it and take it into consideration, but if not, im not going to just flop over because you have your own swell opinion.,

No he can't. He does not care what the Fathers have to say. He speaks only from his personal opinion, without a care for the Truth. This is exactly why I didn't realized your earlier post was responding to him... What he has to say is not at all edifying, so I rarely even read the tripe he comes up with.

 

[Apophatic80]

NFP is contraception.

M.

You bet NFP is contraception. The policy came out under Paul VI, and it was a drastic change from previous Roman Church positions. In the old days, when a man's wife became menopausal, the couple were expected to live as brother and sister, which seems to contradict the adivce where the Apostle Paul advises man and wife to take each other frequently, so that they don't become seduced by the Evil One's temptations. That tells me that that sexual union isn't just about pro-creation. Anyway, that's my take on it. I think the Western Church is so weird about sex due to ideas concerning primogeniture and St. Augustine who had some deep sexual issues.

 

[jckstraw72]

what is primogeniture?

 

[Apophatic80]

what is primogeniture?

Priomgeniture is where, in certain European nations, the custom was to give the surviving eldest son all of the Father's property. the Roman Church didn't want to become entangled in messy court proceedings where significant church property was involved, which is why I understand clerical celibacy became the norm in Western Europe. I think the Church of Rome will again go back to married clergy if it intends to end its current vocation crisis. I apologize for how off of topic this is.