NFP in Marriage?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Holy macaroni!!! I leave TAW for a few hours and World War VII breaks out!!!? Dang!!!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

 

[~Anastasia~]

Holy macaroni!!! I leave TAW for a few hours and World War VII breaks out!!!? Dang!!!

I know ...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Did you just apologize to this guy and then take it back all in one post, Tapi, or am I seeing things?

I agree that we should not judge our neighbor. Prodromos has my apologies for getting a little heated and passing judgement. To me it seems just incomprehensible that anyone would make such remarks with a clear conscience and with genuine love for their neighbor. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.

 

[tapi]

Did you just apologize to this guy and then take it back all in one post, Tapi, or am I seeing things?

I do not condone of his attitude, which I find repulsive. However, I should not have speculated on his motives, which I obviously cannot know.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well, I would just say Prodromos has been on this forum for a darn long time. He's a pretty solid, easy-going guy and has never struck me as a hardcore rigid man with any ill will in his heart for any poster. He has a lot of constraint actually. He's a good dude. I think you might've read more into his post than I did? I don't know...

I do not condone of his attitude, which I find repulsive. However, I should not have speculated on his motives, which I obviously cannot know.

 

[tapi]

Well, I would just say Prodromos has been on this forum for a darn long time. He's a pretty solid, easy-going guy and has never struck me as a hardcore rigid man with any ill will in his heart for any poster. He has a lot of constraint actually. He's a good dude. I think you might've read more into his post than I did? I don't know...

Well, as we saw by the reaction, the reception of his little message was not quite positive. Heck, even pateros Matt considered his tone "insensitive and out of turn", which I personally find to be a huge understatement. I believe in the lesser socialized circles spouting out in person something as inane as what prodromos said would yield a thorough spanking delivered by the recipient. So yeah, clearly we are not on the same page on the issue.

 

[rusmeister]

then a lot of bishops need to speak to their priests.

The bishops are now being formed with the same thinking. They also do not escape modern education and the media. (Not all of them, by any means. But certainly an increasing number. If Metropolitan Kallistos has already succumbed, what else could we expect? That’s why I see mass apostasy in the Church to be a serious danger.)

 

[rusmeister]

Well, as we saw by the reaction, the reception of his little message was not quite positive. Heck, even pateros Matt considered his tone "insensitive and out of turn", which I personally find to be a huge understatement. I believe in the lesser socialized circles spouting out in person something as inane as what prodromos said would yield a thorough spanking delivered by the recipient. So yeah, clearly we are not on the same page on the issue.

Indeed we are not. I read it, in context, and understood it, and see that you don’t.

He said “Glory to God!” (that Lotar has a child). You took it to mean “I am happy that you are suffering”, which he didn’t mean at all.

He spoke about bearing a cross, acknowledging that the health issues are hard to deal with and sadden us. You took that in a dismissive way.

He said that God had permitted that situation, and that railing against our crosses is something we’re not supposed to be doing. A little insensitive? Maybe. But true? Most certainly. Blaming Fr Josiah for teaching what has always been taught is decidedly inappropriate.

My mother has raised and is caring for a boy, now technically a man going on thirty, born in Mexico to a Mexican drug addict mother, who has spina bifida and is a complete invalid. There are really hard situations in this world, and people who manage to glorify God and find gratitude. How you’re reacting to Fr Josiah (and podromos) is just like shooting the messenger because the message is not what one wants to hear. These situations are always hard, and I’m always ready to have sympathy with the struggle, and sad that some have children who will never grow up to be healthy, normal adults. But Christian morality is what it is, and all of that sadness doesn’t change what the fathers teach about sexuality and what our attitudes toward it ought to be, and often are not.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I just saw is like Rus did. I think sometimes it’s best not to react at all. My mom had several BAD miscarriages early on in my parents’ marriage. Each one was rough. The second one resulted in a bloody mess my dad had to clean up in the kitchen with pieces of the fetus all over. The third was in the beginning of the 7th month, and died in the hospital. My mom was shell-shocked and heart was raw and broken. Some coworker kept telling her, “Well, it was the LORD’S WILL!!” That didn’t help, and it seemed to twist the spiritual knife deeper into her ribs. Hearing that stuff isn’t helpful.

I’m thinking, Tapi, you felt like that’s what Pro was saying. I tend to think Rus is correct, and knowing Pro as we do, I think maybe it’s better to ask him to explain his comment before jumping the gun and pushing him down a flight of stairs. Most of these folks in here are good to go. Give him the benefit of the doubt. This thread has had some pretty deep trolling if you ask me.

Well, as we saw by the reaction, the reception of his little message was not quite positive. Heck, even pateros Matt considered his tone "insensitive and out of turn", which I personally find to be a huge understatement. I believe in the lesser socialized circles spouting out in person something as inane as what prodromos said would yield a thorough spanking delivered by the recipient. So yeah, clearly we are not on the same page on the issue.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The bishops are now being formed with the same thinking. They also do not escape modern education and the media. (Not all of them, by any means. But certainly an increasing number. If Metropolitan Kallistos has already succumbed, what else could we expect? That’s why I see mass apostasy in the Church to be a serious danger.)

the Holy Spirit will find someone to speak out, who is a bishop. or a bishop who will support someone to speak out.

 

[rusmeister]

the Holy Spirit will find someone to speak out, who is a bishop. or a bishop who will support someone to speak out.

I hope it is clear that I am no schismatic, and that I do hope so. I'm just saying that we have reached a point where something which ought to be administered as economia pretty much never, is administered upon request, that is, the vast majority of the time. Just look at how people in the Church now react if you suggest that their condoms and pills are actually contrary to how we ought to be living. They flip out, and most assume that it is their RIGHT, that it's not even economia.

But yes, we need bishops who remind us of where we ought to be - holiness, and don't tell us to just be satisfied with where we are and what we are doing.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I hope it is clear that I am no schismatic, and that I do hope so. I'm just saying that we have reached a point where something which ought to be administered as economia pretty much never, is administered upon request, that is, the vast majority of the time. Just look at how people in the Church now react if you suggest that their condoms and pills are actually contrary to how we ought to be living. They flip out, and most assume that it is their RIGHT, that it's not even economia.

But yes, we need bishops who remind us of where we ought to be - holiness, and don't tell us to just be satisfied with where we are and what we are doing.

no, you are no schismatic and you don't sound like one. it's just that this is an issue for the bishops.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think it just boils down to economics and practicality. If each American has 12 kids in this economy, prepare to become a third world country. Housing, groceries, education, college, bills, clothing, and the other zillion expenses that come with kids makes having a Waltons-size family a bit unrealistic. Either that, or one seriously lacking, dreary sex life. Both don’t sound too realistic. My three kids are my life, but I must say, on paper my wife and I make $165,000. Reality is we’re broke each month. If I had 5,6,7 I’d be living behind Costco looking like the Road Warrior or Water World!

 

[Platina]

Either that, or one seriously lacking, dreary sex life.

I mean, there's a lot worse things in life than this, and a lot better things about marriage than this!

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think it just boils down to economics and practicality. If each American has 12 kids in this economy, prepare to become a third world country. Housing, groceries, education, college, bills, clothing, and the other zillion expenses that come with kids makes having a Waltons-size family a bit unrealistic. Either that, or one seriously lacking, dreary sex life. Both don’t sound too realistic. My three kids are my life, but I must say, on paper my wife and I make $165,000. Reality is we’re broke each month. If I had 5,6,7 I’d be living behind Costco looking like the Road Warrior or Water World!

sure, and that's where being pastoral comes into play. the starting point is contraception is a no-go. but your bishop and priest are tasked with applying this to you for your spiritual health and salvation (as well as your wife and kids). so the answer might be to allow it, or allow it with a certain prayer rule, or whatever.

the Church officially says no to a lot of things she still allows because we live in our fallen condition.

 

[truefiction1]

If only that darn, pesky Truth wasn't unchanging. Darn Truth!

Bishops were permitted, at one time, to be married and serving as bishops at the same time. Things do change in the lives of the people, and since it isn't a matter of Theology whether or not bishops should or should not marry, then it doesn't matter, Theologically speaking, if they do or not. We might consider whether the question of "how many" children believing couples should or should not have is a matter of Theology, or rather, a different sort of matter that can allow room for flexibility.

 

[rusmeister]

no, you are no schismatic and you don't sound like one. it's just that this is an issue for the bishops.

And historically, if the bishops depart from the teaching of the fathers, and embrace the teaching of the world, administered first in the schools, then “higher education”, and always in the media, then what is the right thing for the faithful to do? And I mean when it is clear that that is what has always been taught, not just Joe Schmoe’s opinion.

 

[rusmeister]

I think it just boils down to economics and practicality. If each American has 12 kids in this economy, prepare to become a third world country. Housing, groceries, education, college, bills, clothing, and the other zillion expenses that come with kids makes having a Waltons-size family a bit unrealistic. Either that, or one seriously lacking, dreary sex life. Both don’t sound too realistic. My three kids are my life, but I must say, on paper my wife and I make $165,000. Reality is we’re broke each month. If I had 5,6,7 I’d be living behind Costco looking like the Road Warrior or Water World!

Gurney, this is one of the more painful points, when real hardship encounters our teaching. I acknowledge that your situation has been hard. But the same justifications are given for abortion, and when it comes to that, we know that the hardship has to be embraced, that is the teaching, and we can’t make an exception just because it becomes hard. Now I understand that child prevention (for that is what all “birth control” is) includes a lot more than abortion, from “NFP” and condoms to pills and devices, and so does not always mean killing a child, formed life. But everybody is assuming that the marital act has a function that is separable from the reproductive function, the possibility of life, and that’s just not how any Christian denomination at all understood the act across Christian history.

Y’all are approaching it from a standpoint of “This is the situation we find ourselves in, and this is what works for us” rather than “How ought we to live and to see everything, including marriage?”. In other words, what ought we to be striving towards? My problem with the whole approach in the Church (and I struggle with it, too, and find that I need to judge myself more harshly, or demandingly, if you prefer) is that it says that we will accept the teachings until they become hard, and then we will find excuse. I know, as I have excuses, myself.

For me, GKC taught me the tremendous lesson that we cannot even be practical until we first establish our ideals, the direction we want to go in and the destination we want to reach. “Practice” just means “do”, and practice that rejects the ideals is just Nike’s retarded slogan, “Just do it!”, or in even simpler terms, “Act without thinking!” And the Christian ideal is hard, really hard. Most of you are in that nasty economic cycle because we were born into the world of Hudge and Gudge, (thinking of GF Watt’s painting, “Mammon”), and have accepted without question the idea that the only way to live is to have an employer, to work for a wage, without considering how that violates even the human ideal.

So I ask, what did the fathers teach? Can we articulate it? Are we at least trying to make moves in the direction they point in? Have we gotten so compassionate in pastoral care that we are willing to ignore truth, and have ceased exhorting one another to holiness? I speak as a sinner and a hypocrite. I am just aware that I need, and I think we all need, more exhortation, compassion that is tempered by truth, and not merely by pity.

I just spent two weeks with an American priest who has moved to Russia, who has 8 kids, who underwent chemotherapy last year, and who lives a minimal life, but who refused that paradigm that says we must prevent the children because of the poverty of our lives. His children are amazing, and I found myself inspired by that family.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hear what you're saying, but I think Orthodoxy has a measure of practicality to it where pastoral care is concerned. There are plenty of women to whom post pardem depression will literally crush with thoughts of suicide and despair. Physically it tears some women apart to keep pumping out kids endlessly. And at a certain point birth defects like Down's Syndrome are a risk, and having far more kids than you can handle just isn't practical or really very moral. I can barely handle the 3 kids I have. If you threw on 3 more, no way. I mean...NO WAY! Make it 8 and I'd be severely depressed. I know myself, and I know my wife. And I know you're not much of a fan of pastoral care. Where NFP and some of these issues are concerned, you have a bit more of a Roman Catholic mindset, possibly the Chesterton influence. Very rigorous, and I don't hear that thinking much. I hear much more of the Father Meyendorff thinking that encourages opening your home to as many children as you can possibly responsibly and lovingly take-on. But yes, I will be 100%. I don't want to live in the Third World. I've visited it many times. Not interested. And yes, I know I'm a touch of a hypocrite. But I think economia in the face of many factors is best. Like I said, there are Ancient Fathers who would say Rusmeister is sinning because he shaves. No beard? You're either wanting to be like a woman or a child. That is what some believed. Does that particular thought apply to you? If we want to get rigorous enough, I'd say yes. I'm not a perfect Christian by a long shot. I'm quite sure if the Lord had asked me to sacrifice my eldest son, Luke, on Mt. Moriah, He would have been extremely disappointed in me, his pitiful servant, because there's no way on Earth I'd lay my boy down to gut. I wouldn't sell my daughters like in the Scriptures either to some guy for the right dowry.

It's an interesting discussion, but I find myself not on the rigorous side of this. I think it is selfish to want zero kids, unnatural to the marriage state. I think usually two isn't enough. But in some cases, people just can't afford even the three I have. I'll leave it at that.

Gurney, this is one of the more painful points, when real hardship encounters our teaching. I acknowledge that your situation has been hard. But the same justifications are given for abortion, and when it comes to that, we know that the hardship has to be embraced, that is the teaching, and we can’t make an exception just because it becomes hard. Now I understand that child prevention (for that is what all “birth control” is) includes a lot more than abortion, from “NFP” and condoms to pills and devices, and so does not always mean killing a child, formed life. But everybody is assuming that the marital act has a function that is separable from the reproductive function, the possibility of life, and that’s just not how any Christian denomination at all understood the act across Christian history.

Y’all are approaching it from a standpoint of “This is the situation we find ourselves in, and this is what works for us” rather than “How ought we to live and to see everything, including marriage?”. In other words, what ought we to be striving towards? My problem with the whole approach in the Church (and I struggle with it, too, and find that I need to judge myself more harshly, or demandingly, if you prefer) is that it says that we will accept the teachings until they become hard, and then we will find excuse. I know, as I have excuses, myself.

For me, GKC taught me the tremendous lesson that we cannot even be practical until we first establish our ideals, the direction we want to go in and the destination we want to reach. “Practice” just means “do”, and practice that rejects the ideals is just Nike’s retarded slogan, “Just do it!”, or in even simpler terms, “Act without thinking!” And the Christian ideal is hard, really hard. Most of you are in that nasty economic cycle because we were born into the world of Hudge and Gudge, (thinking of GF Watt’s painting, “Mammon”), and have accepted without question the idea that the only way to live is to have an employer, to work for a wage, without considering how that violates even the human ideal.

So I ask, what did the fathers teach? Can we articulate it? Are we at least trying to make moves in the direction they point in? Have we gotten so compassionate in pastoral care that we are willing to ignore truth, and have ceased exhorting one another to holiness? I speak as a sinner and a hypocrite. I am just aware that I need, and I think we all need, more exhortation, compassion that is tempered by truth, and not merely by pity.

I just spent two weeks with an American priest who has moved to Russia, who has 8 kids, who underwent chemotherapy last year, and who lives a minimal life, but who refused that paradigm that says we must prevent the children because of the poverty of our lives. His children are amazing, and I found myself inspired by that family.