From: "Fr Seraphim von Abele" <frseraphim@home.com>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:47:08 -0700

 

 

>Because one is mutilating the marital act and indeed frequently the

>human body, the other is just having the marital act at certain times,

>at which times it is just as incapable of producing children as as it

>would be at the same times if one just had relations when one was so

>inclined and there was no reason not to. Another way of looking at it

>is that one is a way of performing sexual relations (in a distorted

>form), the other a way of abstaining from relations.

 

 

But exactly WHY does artificial birth control "mutilate" sexual intercourse (I

dislike calling sex "the marital act" as if my giving a cup of coffee to my

wife were not also a "marital act")? What makes it a distortion and NFP not a

distortion when the aim of both is the same? Is it simply the fact of wanting

to have sex without conception, or is it something else?

 

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:12:00 -0400

From: Mary Lanser <mel5@psu.edu>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

At 01:47 PM 10/10/2001 -0700, Fr Seraphim von Abele wrote:

> >Because one is mutilating the marital act and indeed frequently the

> >human body, the other is just having the marital act at certain times,

> >at which times it is just as incapable of producing children as as it

> >would be at the same times if one just had relations when one was so

> >inclined and there was no reason not to. Another way of looking at it

> >is that one is a way of performing sexual relations (in a distorted

> >form), the other a way of abstaining from relations.

>

>But exactly WHY does artificial birth control "mutilate" sexual intercourse (I

>dislike calling sex "the marital act" as if my giving a cup of coffee to my

>wife were not also a "marital act")? What makes it a distortion and NFP not a

>distortion when the aim of both is the same? Is it simply the fact of wanting

>to have sex without conception, or is it something else?

 

 

It is the act of abstaining that is the critical difference...NOT...the

intention to or not to have children. That is something else again and

would benefit from pastoral guidance though that is rarely done these

days. NFP is a form of fasting that condoms and other sexual conundrums do

not provide. Something kin to the difference between freedom and license.

 

 

It boggles the mind that one has to explain these things to grown Catholic

and Orthodox men...really one might think you would have some firmer grip

on the full meaning of chastity...rather than continually grasping at

something else.....rosie

 

From: "Fr Seraphim von Abele" <frseraphim@home.com>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:23:39 -0700

 

 

It is the act of abstaining that is the critical difference...NOT...the

intention to or not to have children. That is something else again and

would benefit from pastoral guidance though that is rarely done these

days. NFP is a form of fasting that condoms and other sexual conundrums do

not provide. Something kin to the difference between freedom and license.

 

 

It boggles the mind that one has to explain these things to grown Catholic

and Orthodox men...really one might think you would have some firmer grip

on the full meaning of chastity...rather than continually grasping at

something else.....

 

 

Well, personal attacks aren't really necessary, are they? Rational discourse

would suffice, not that I'm so great at that myself :-). As far as chastity

goes, let's remember that the basic meaning of sofrosunh (sp?) is

"integrity."

 

 

Whether or not they are using artificial birth control, Orthodox couples will

be abstaining from sexual intercourse during fasting periods and before

receiving the Eucharist. So your point does not really explain the moral

difference between NFP and artificial birth control.

 

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:32:18 -0400

From: Mary Lanser <mel5@psu.edu>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

At 02:23 PM 10/10/2001 -0700, Fr Seraphim von Abele wrote:

 

 

>Well, personal attacks aren't really necessary, are they? Rational discourse

>would suffice, not that I'm so great at that myself :-). As far as chastity

>goes, let's remember that the basic meaning of sofrosunh (sp?) is

>"integrity."

 

 

Where is your sense of humor, kind sir? Ah...I see it now.

 

 

>Whether or not they are using artificial birth control, Orthodox couples will

>be abstaining from sexual intercourse during fasting periods and before

>receiving the Eucharist. So your point does not really explain the moral

>difference between NFP and artificial birth control.

 

 

huh?...I know you think that there is a logic in here but it fails to prove

that I am mistaken. All it does is remind me that the Orthodox do it more

often....fast, that is...and should have no need for artificial birth

control since they are so accustomed. Although...given the size of some of

the families and the general cheerfulness of the men in the local Orthodox

parish 'round here, it is quite apparent that there's precious little NFP

or birth control being employed. Doesn't bother me. I love babies and men

who smile.....rosie

 

From: "Fr Seraphim von Abele" <frseraphim@home.com>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:26:02 -0700

 

 

"Rosie" wrote:

 

 

>>>It boggles the mind that one has to explain these things to grown Catholic

>>>and Orthodox men...really one might think you would have some firmer grip

>>>on the full meaning of chastity...rather than continually grasping at

>>>something else.....

 

 

I replied:

 

 

>>Well, personal attacks aren't really necessary, are they? Rational

discourse

>>would suffice, not that I'm so great at that myself :-). As far as chastity

>>goes, let's remember that the basic meaning of sofrosunh (sp?) is

>>"integrity."

 

 

"Rosie" replied:

 

 

>Where is your sense of humor, kind sir? Ah...I see it now.

 

 

You expect me to believe that your comment was "simply" a joke? Give me a

break. Here's what really happened, just so you know it's clear to me and to

everyone reading the list: you insulted me, I called you on it, and you felt

embarrassed and tried to come up with a lame excuse. Moreover, you insulted me

because it was easier than answering me. When that happens I think I can be

forgiven for assuming that it's because you have no answer.

 

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:42:17 -0400

From: Mary Lanser <mel5@psu.edu>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

At 03:26 PM 10/10/2001 -0700, Fr Seraphim von Abele wrote:

>"Rosie" replied:

>

> >Where is your sense of humor, kind sir? Ah...I see it now.

>

>You expect me to believe that your comment was "simply" a joke? Give me a

>break. Here's what really happened, just so you know it's clear to me and to

>everyone reading the list: you insulted me, I called you on it, and you felt

>embarrassed and tried to come up with a lame excuse. Moreover, you insulted me

>because it was easier than answering me. When that happens I think I can be

>forgiven for assuming that it's because you have no answer.

 

 

You stupid man...<this is a direct insult especially for you>...I did not

even pay any attention to whose post I was responding to. I was responding

to the ideas contained therein not the person. I often do NOT even look at

the headers since my time and attention spans are both quite limited and

most of the time I do not care who is saying what...just what is being

said....mary

 

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:00:42 -0400

From: Thomas Whalen <whalen@gsu.edu>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

Mary Lanser wrote:

> You stupid man...<this is a direct insult especially for you>

 

 

Mary Lanser is on vacation from the list for at least a week

 

 

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:37:08 -0400

From: Mary Lanser <mel5@psu.edu>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

At 02:23 PM 10/10/2001 -0700, Fr Seraphim von Abele wrote:

 

 

>Well, personal attacks aren't really necessary, are they? Rational discourse

>would suffice, not that I'm so great at that myself :-). As far as chastity

>goes, let's remember that the basic meaning of sofrosunh (sp?) is

>"integrity."

 

 

Yes. And that does what to my assertion that there is a difference in the

spiritual qualities of NFP and ABC?...It is interesting in its own right

though. What do you mean when you say integrity? I don't disagree. I

just don't want to presume since we are having a mature discourse

here...<o>*<o>....rosie

 

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:01:24 -0400 (EDT)

From: "Sharon Mech" <sharon@cmhcsys.com>

 

 

Hmmmm.....

 

 

Integrity, fasting.... Well, here goes.

 

 

I would disagree that the Church teaches that the primary purpose of marriage is

to have kids. Two people who hate each other can have kids. Marriage builds up

the larger Kingdom by building a smaller kingdom - a stable home presided over

by a couple united in faith and love. As anyone who is married knows, stability

does not come instantly or without work, and it is rarely permanent. (And kids

are remarkably destabilizing influences, LOL!)

 

 

Sex is a multi-purpose activity in marriage. Yes, making love makes babies. But

not always. The Church teaches that sexual union also can build up the bond

between husband and wife, and most of us can agree that it's kinda fun, too.

But the Church also teaches that sex is legitimate only if it retains its

wholeness - first the marital bond, second the unitive "opportunity" and third,

the openness to life. Whether barrier or chemical, contraception knocks out

the third characteristic - like eating something delicious then inducing

vomiting to avoid the weight gain. Sure, NFP can be used selfishly to entirely

avoid the possibility of pregnancy ('cept that the Good Lord has been known

to load the dice even then) but there's nothing blocking egg and sperm from

meeting, nor anything to prevent implantation should they meet. Abstinence

isn't contraception. Periodic abstinence (assuming good will & intent) fosters

or can foster communication, and appreciation of the non-abstinent times.

 

 

As for "requiring" couples to produce a child before teaching them NFP, I would

respectfully argue that it would be a really stupid idea. NFP is Natural Family

PLANNING. As much as it teaches how not to conceive when it might not be the

"right" time, it gives couples the information they need to increase their

chances of conception if & when they DO want a baby. I would not be pregnant

now, nor would I have my nearly 5 year old son if I didn't know how to chart my

cycles. Most women have only the vaguest general idea of when they ovulate, and

I daresay their husbands are equally clueless. NFP makes you observe and pay

attention.

 

 

Last of all, NFP doesn't hurt anyone. Pills screw up a woman's natural cycles

bigtime, as do just about all hormonal methods. IUDs carry the risk of uterine

scarring, PID and infections. Spermicide makes some women bleed, and good ol'

latex condoms (which have a remarkably high failure rate!) can add to the

already epidemic latex sensitization rates. NFP does nothing to change the

health or body chemistry of either partner.

 

 

Just my two shekels.

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

Sharon

(32 weeks preggo with #3, thanks to the Good Lord, my beloved & my thermometer)

 

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:13:20 -0700 (PDT)

From: Charles Collins <charley_collins_2000@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

I would disagree with Sharon that the primary purpose

of marriage is not children.

 

 

Although she is correct that not all marriages beget

children (let alone all sexual acts), that is what the

sex act is specifically designed for - children. And

as canonists LOVE to say, "There is only one thing

reserved between man and wife": i.e., that sex is what

primarily makes marriage marriage (hence the reasons

that impotence is considered a natural law impediment

to marriage).

 

 

Also, this has been the constant teaching of the

Church (although there has been a certain reluctance

to rank the goods nowadays, it doesn't mean they

aren't still taught).

 

 

I only bring this up because the acceptance of

contraception almost always begins with a removal of

children as the primary end of marriage in theology.

 

 

However, this does not take away that the mutual love

of spouses is an indispensible part of marriage.

 

 

Charley

 

 

P.S. This is my first post in a while. I have gone

from being unemployed in Texas to being unemployed in

Rome, Italy - never has sloth felt so good (by the

way, if anyone knows of any job opportunities over

here, please e-mail me privately - thus endeth the

unseemly classified ad.)

 

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:36:56 -0400 (EDT)

From: "Sharon Mech" <sharon@cmhcsys.com>

 

 

Charley,

 

 

I don't for a moment believe that children aren't a very important part of

marriage, but I also STRONGLY believe that 99% of marriage is about what you

do when you're not having sex.

 

 

I wish I knew folks in Italy who needed good workers. Glad that you're at least

enjoying your surroundings.

 

 

Best,

 

 

Sharon

 

 

Sharon Mech, SFO

 

 

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:33:36 -0400

From: Thomas Whalen <whalen@gsu.edu>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

Charles Collins wrote:

>

> I would disagree with Sharon that the primary purpose

> of marriage is not children.

 

 

There's a difference between saying the primary purpose

of marriage is children and saying the primary purpose

of sex is the manufacturing of children. The natural

habitat in which children thrive is in a family centered

around a mother and a father who share a strong and intimate

love for one another. (Children can thrive in other

environments, but with difficulty.) A natural part of

family life is more-or-less regular sexual relation

between the parents. (Again, family life can thrive

without this; it is neither necessary nor sufficient,

but it helps a lot!)

 

 

 

 

--

Thomas Whalen     whalen@gsu.edu  http://www.gsu.edu/~dscthw

Professor of Decision Science

Georgia State University        "First things first, but not

Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 USA       necessarily in that order" - Dr. Who

 

 

From: SLKAssoc@aol.com

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:31:01 EDT

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

In a message dated 10/10/01 14:55:33, frseraphim@home.com writes:

 

 

<< Care to elaborate briefly? >>

 

 

Certainly. Here is the relevant passage from Archbishop Joseph:

 

 

Crowning: the Christian Marriage

Birth Control

 

 

In a world where eroticism dominates the hearts and minds of men and women,

it is almost impossible to honor the Christian vision of a sexuality more

precious than pleasure and more honorable than social necessity. In our

days, the problems of birth control are heart rending.

 

 

In his praiseworthy attempt to counteract a sexual morality falsified by a

secularized society and atheistic propaganda, Pope Paul VI, who at the time

of the Second Vatican Council had reserved to himself the final decision on

birth control, called upon a papal commission to advise him before publishing

the official Church doctrine.

 

 

Over three quarters of the members, chosen by the Pope for their wisdom and

reliability, offered the majority opinion endorsing a carefully qualified use

of birth control, and proposed a revision of the current unqualified

condemnation.

 

 

Pope Paul VI, however, disregarded their advice and published the Encyclical

Humanae Vitae, maintaining the negative position. There is a present a

painful tension between the supporters of rigidity in this matter, and those

who believe it is unjustified.

 

 

The Byzantine ceremony of Crowning glorifies Christian chastity. Chastity

means integrity of the human relation, integration of the forces of life into

the personalistic aspects of nuptial love, which leads the couple into the

Kingdom, into the peace and harmony of life. Both fertile and childless

couples go beyond the mere functional: the combine the instinctive and

passionate movements of their love, integrating them into a single act of

ascent of pure goodness. It is not in spite of marriage, but in its

fulfillment in peace, harmony and supreme joy that couples live the

supernatural and holy reality of their union, chastity.

 

 

In the embrace of love, Christian couples are chaste. They are perfectly and

entirely for each other. "I am my Belovedb_s and my Beloved is mine"

(Canticle of Canticles). In genuine faith, they assume their human and

spiritual responsibilities, and choose the best ways, pleasing to God, to ac

hieve what they have set out to do. Birth control is in some way their

responsibility. Vatican Council II has clearly established that conscience

is the most sacred core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God,

whose voice echoes in his depths.

 

 

The theologian Paul Evdokimos, in his study on the "Sacrament of Love",

summarizes the attitude of Eastern theology on birth control: The Church

"addresses herself to evangelical metanoia, and hopes to change man and woman

into a new creation, to render them charismatic; She exorcises demonic powers

and protects the Gate of Life; She discerns among the spirits, and shows the

pathways to ultimate liberation; She does not define the rules of social

life, and does not prescribe panacaeas. . . " (p.175). The Church should

never refuse to advise when advice is sought, but should not try to

manipulate the intimacy of husband and wife. Patriarch Maximos IV of

Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem proclaimed at the Council of Vatican II,

"The Church does not penetrate into the nuptial chamber. She stands at the

door."

 

 

The Byzantine Church does indeed believe that the Sacrament of Crowning

establishes the man and woman as prophets, king and queen of supernatural

worth, and robes them with the Royal Priesthood of Christ. Their dignity is

real. Consequently, their vocation will be to form personal decisions, and

to judge situations, in order to find solutions to the individual

circumstances of their lives.

 

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:57:33 -0400

From: Gerard Serafin <jerard@home.com>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

If I'm not mistaken, when Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, Patriarch Athenagoras

sent him a telegram expressing his full support for the teaching therein, which

was the common teaching of the entire Christian world for so many centuries.

 

 

        Gerard Serafin

 

Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:22:45 -0700 (PDT)

From: Alphonso Pinto <lopezpinto@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

Some thought on archbishop Raya's statements by a

student

 

 

 

>Birth control

> is in some way their

> responsibility. Vatican Council II has clearly

> established that conscience

> is the most sacred core and sanctuary of a man.

> There he is alone with God,

> whose voice echoes in his depths.

 

 

 

Yes, conscience is sacred to the actions to man. It

is said that in the conscience, God speaks. However,

at the same time, the conscience needs to be properly

formed. There can be a conscience that is erroneous.

This is not surprising as we battle the passions. At

times, man might not want to have his conscience

properly formed because of his pride. At others, just

simple laziness in learning more about matters of

faith or morality can truly impede in the proper

formation of a conscience. If consciences came

directly from God, all perfect, not dulled by sin and

the passions, then all would have the same answer to

moral problems. After all, could there be truth if

God promoted contraception in one soul and not in

another? Either contraception is "intrinsically evil"

or it is not. Either it is against his laws to use

it, or it is not. Either it promotes the human good,

or it does not.

 

 

Thus, the Pope of Rome, Paul VI, promulgating Humanae

Vitaen and professing that contraception is

"intrinsically evil" and does not promote the good of

life, even against the advice of his advisors, seems

to be a clear indication that it does not promote the

good of man, and is not in GOd's plan, and is a grave

sin.

 

 

I do not think that this is an invasion of the

sacredness of the nuptial chamber. The teaching of

the Holy Father is not a legalistic command, or a form

of canon law, but truly strives to form the heart of

man, that he may be open to God's grace and to be

deified in His Light. THe Church does not invade the

nuptial Bed but promotes its dignity, and shows the

husband and wife how to love each other, how to be

open to children, and how to be open to God.

 

 

Thus, the Church forms the conscience of the husband

and wife through Humanae Vitae. In reading the present

theological reflections of the Pope of Rome in Hid

Love and REsponsibility, THeology of the BOdy, and

Encyclical Evangelion Vitae, it is clear that

contraception is not in God's plan and is not open to

life and the good of man.

 

 

Looking at the Roman Church as a sort of canonist in

these matters, I think it does not give credit where

it is due. It really has shown itself through many

Popes and pastoral teaching to be far from being a

canonist but one that strives to show man the path to

salvation. Just for us, we need spiritual guidance

from a Spiritual Father to show us the way to love God

and to initate Him and to conquer our passions, so I

think the nuptial bed needs guidance, for husband and

wife can make mistakes, they can sin, they can ignore

their own dignity as icon of Christ God, and so they

need guidance to be on the path to reflect His image

and likeness. I think this is the purpose of Humanae

Vitae and the Church's "ban" on contraception. THe

Church is showing that Contraception is not in God's

plan. THat if man follows this path, he mars the

image and likeness in him, of the One who made him.

And in the case of husband and wife and the nuptial

bed, intimacy, especially spiritual intimacy, is

marred and degraded by contraception. The bed of

self-giving becomes the bed of selfishness. This is

not invasion of privacy, but it is the promotion of

intimacy and is helping the blest couple to keep away

from potholes along the way. The Church does not want

her flock to obey out of fear, but to internalize the

teaching, and to understand why it is wrong, why it is

immoral. The penitent listens to the Elder out of

obedience. And obedience is not servile and

slave-like, but in knowing what is immoral or not,

what is pleasing to Christ and how to love Him more,

it is liberating.

 

 

We all need guidance that we may be more like Christ,

and to follow Him til the end, when by His mercy we

may be recieved into his kingdom.

 

 

Father bless,

 

 

Alphonso Pinto

>

> The theologian Paul Evdokimos, in his study on the

> "Sacrament of Love",

> summarizes the attitude of Eastern theology on

> birth control: The Church

> "addresses herself to evangelical metanoia, and

> hopes to change man and woman

 

From: SLKAssoc@aol.com

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:35:21 EDT

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

In a message dated 10/10/01 16:15:09, charley_collins_2000@yahoo.com writes:

 

 

<< I would disagree with Sharon that the primary purpose

of marriage is not children. >>

 

 

Then you would be incorrect. The Greek Fathers, at least, are unanimous in

their assertion that the primary purpose of marriage is unitive--the uniting

of a man and woman as one flesh in Christ, a sacrament of the unity between

Christ and the Church, and between God and man. Children are not the purpose

of marriage, but a seal upon it.

 

From: SLKAssoc@aol.com

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:06:37 EDT

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

In a message dated 10/10/01 17:58:57, jerard@home.com writes:

 

 

<< If I'm not mistaken, when Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, Patriarch

Athenagoras

 

 

sent him a telegram expressing his full support for the teaching therein,

which

 

 

was the common teaching of the entire Christian world for so many centuries.

 

 

>>

 

 

Except insofar as the Byzantine approach to moral teachings generally avoids

the absolutism and legalism which marks that of the Latin Church, so that, as

Evdokimos writes, the Church holds up an evangelical ideal and encourages all

to strive towards it, as opposed to setting rigid rules to which all must

cleave, or else. Episcopal and presbyteral oikonomia take precedence in this

case, as in most others. What is right for one couple in one set of

circumstances may be wrong for another couple in a different set of circumstances.

Except insofar as the Byzantine approach to moral teachings generally avoids

> the absolutism and legalism which marks that of the Latin Church, so that, as

> Evdokimos writes, the Church holds up an evangelical ideal and encourages all

> to strive towards it, as opposed to setting rigid rules to which all must

> cleave, or else. Episcopal and presbyteral oikonomia take precedence in this

> case, as in most others. What is right for one couple in one set of

> circumstances may be wrong for another couple in a different set of

> circumstances.

 

 

Humanae Vitae is hardly an example of setting rigid rules to which all

must cleave or else. An actual reading of the actual text shows a truly

pastoral and compassionate approach.

 

 

Patriarch Athenagoras did not give any reservations when he told Paul VI

that he supported him in this encyclical.

 

 

Paul VI and John Paul II would reject, however, a situation ethics that

would consider an objective evil as sometimes justified by

circumstances. The Byzantine Christian world once would have agreed.

 

 

 

--

 

        Gerard Serafin

 

From: "Fr Seraphim von Abele" <frseraphim@home.com>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:32:08 -0700

 

 

I was also told privately by another Orthodox priest that the Synod of the

Church of Greece issued an encyclical in 1937 which strongly condemned all

contraception. I haven't yet been able to locate the text -- can anyone help?

 

 

Two questions:

 

 

1) Was NFP always accepted by the RCC, or was its acceptance an innovation?

 

 

2) A little research showed that indeed contraception in one form or another

has been around for thousands of years (the Egyptian methods were pretty

unpleasant!). Can anyone help me with the history of the Church's stance --

maybe give Patristic or ancient canonical references and condemnations? I

wonder if the reasoning behind the rejection has always been the same.

 

 

In XC,

 

From: "Philip E. Cleary" <pcleary@wans.net>

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:45:19 -0400

 

 

<Can anyone help me with the history of the Church's stance --

maybe give Patristic or ancient canonical references and condemnations?>

 

 

I believe that the standard work on the subject is "Contraception: A History

of its treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists" by John Noonan,

published by Harvard University Press.

 

 

Phil Cleary

 

From: DTBrown@aol.com

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:52:19 EDT

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

In a message dated 10/10/01 2:57:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, T254@aol.com

writes:

 

 

 

> For the OCA's stand on Marriage, Abortion, Divorce, and Birth Control you

> can access -

>

>

>

> http://www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/documents/All-American-Council/10-Miami-1992

>

> /Synodal-Affirmations.html#introduction

>

 

 

>From that document:

 

 

 

"Married couples may express their love in sexual union without always

intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling

conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a foetus already

conceived."

 

 

 

Is there any significance to the use of "foetus" here? Does the OCA have

objections to the use of "the Pill" which can prevent an embryo (which is not

yet a fetus) from implantation?

 

 

For further info re: the possible abortifacient nature of "the Pill" see:

 

 

http://www.cin.org/life/pillabor.html

 

 

http://www.icgold.net/mother/pill_abortifacient.html

 

 

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

 

From: DTBrown@aol.com

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 01:17:29 EDT

Subject: Re: [Cineast] NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

 

In a message dated 10/10/01 3:08:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

SLKAssoc@aol.com writes:

 

 

 

> In a message dated 10/10/01 17:58:57, jerard@home.com writes:

>

> << If I'm not mistaken, when Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, Patriarch

> Athenagoras

> sent him a telegram expressing his full support for the teaching therein,

> which

> was the common teaching of the entire Christian world for so many centuries.

>

> >>

>

> Except insofar as the Byzantine approach to moral teachings generally

> avoids

> the absolutism and legalism which marks that of the Latin Church, so that,

> as

> Evdokimos writes, the Church holds up an evangelical ideal and encourages

> all

> to strive towards it, as opposed to setting rigid rules to which all must

> cleave, or else. Episcopal and presbyteral oikonomia take precedence in

> this

> case, as in most others. What is right for one couple in one set of

> circumstances may be wrong for another couple in a different set of

> circumstances.

 

 

 

The historical Byzantine approach to moral teaching on contraception never

allowed for "oikonomia." It was always classed as a serious sin. To contrast

this with the supposed "absolutism and legalism which marks that of the Latin

Church" is like saying that a priest or bishop could, under certain

circumstances, give permission for fornication or adultery.

 

 

The views advanced by Evdokimos and Archbishop Raya on contraception date

only from the mid-twentieth century. The Orthodox priest cited by Bob Tallick

shows clearly the historical Byzantine view on contraception.

 

 

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------