I very much appreciate your last post before the kids started squabbling, Stuart. It adds quite a lot to the conversation.
I hoped to clarify a few points.
For most of human history, contraception was either (a) abortifactant; or (b) closely associated with magic and sorcery. Given those parameters, a universal loathing of the practice was and remains understandable;
And yet the name "onanism" which we all agreed referred to contraception (if among other things) denotes a method not nearly so impressive as abortion or magic. Of the popular modern methods, onanism most resembles the use of a condom, if not quite precisely in the order of operations.
It's interesting that things have strayed so far from the consensus that "God slew Onan for Onanism".
The bulk of the debate seems to ignore or forget that:
an authentic, Eastern Christian approach would, as a matter of principle, uphold the fullness of the Tradition: i.e., any attempt to regulate the number of children or the spacing of children, is falling short of God's intention.
I am getting used to a bit of anti-Roman bias in your perspective. I suppose it's understandable. I expect mine is pro.
You seem to take issue with the Latin use of "natural" and "artificial" as terms for methods, as here:
...methods used were "natural" or "artificial" (itself an artificial distinction)
And yet, when you discuss the Eastern perspective, you find the Eastern Church arriving at the same distinctions:
the [Eastern] Church would encourage the use of so-called natural methods (recognizing that this in itself falls short of perfection). And for those for whom, because of physical or spiritual factors, such methods are either impractical or inappropriate, the Church would also allow the use of non-abortifactant "artificial" means.
At least you've put it in scare quotes for the East as well. Still, I think you've muddled up the thinking on it, and I invite you to consider the possibility that if both East and West agree on something, you ought to give it another look.
Artificial means draw their efficacy by physically or chemically blocking the ordinary function of the body. Natural means, so-called, draw their efficacy from the absence of the act. It is the difference between gastric bypass and skipping lunch. There is a material difference.
As for the rest (Rome is too legalistic, and Western Europeans are uptight and afraid of sex) okay, and water is wet. Still and all, frankly I find it faithless when some doctrine is dismissed or attacked on the basis of claiming some historical bias on the part of the Church. These are the arguments constantly used for Priestesses, abortion, fornication, divorce, etc. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but I don't see any use in a Church so mired in historical baggage that it's completely missed the mark and wildly misled people. Certainly such a thing can't be of God.
Aside, you may not have been paying much attention to the admittedly tiny portion of the debate, but as the modern Latin Church has found enthusiasm for NFP, and pushes it as a newfound virtue, there is a minority who hold that the new current is too permissive, that NFP is not a free pass to avoiding children, that intention must be considered, and that NFP undertaken without grave cause (while not comparable with artificial means) is not blameless, as HV would seem to agree. Mostly this perspective is handled by the Angry Traditionalist Latin Massers, but nobody pays any attention to us.
Previous Topic
Index