The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Regf2, SomeInquirer, Wee Shuggie, Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022
5,881 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (theophan), 92 guests, and 18 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,296
Members5,881
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 2
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by danman916
There have been 4 conditions for the principle to be valid. These are:
1) The act must be good in itself.
...

The use of a condom fails in the first criteria alone. Contracepting is never a good simply because it is contrary to the mystery of the mutual indwelling of the Trinity in which love is freely given and love is freely received by each Person of the Trinity.

This is where you're missing it, I think.

(I'm not offering an opinion on the underlying right or wrong, but in how the argument works).

In the cases under consideration, the condom is not being used for contraception, but rather to prevent the spread of deadly disease. In preventing this disease, it also prevents the transmission of sperm, meaning that conception will not occur.

That the normal use of a condom is for prevention of contraception is irrelevant to this argument; it is simply a bit of sheepskin or latex (if memory serves, the sheepskin version was known to the Romans).

Again, I'm typing about the nature of the dual purpose argument, not whether it's correct or not. It's just that for the argument, we're not talking about the use of the condom being an act of contraception (whether it's interference with the act is intrinsically evil is another question entirely).

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Litvin
[quote=AMM]
Quote
What a base view of human sexuality.
science is a cold field of study in general and human sexuality is practically the same as the sexuality of a cow or a muskrat, and I am done with this unless I ruin peoples views "of human sexuality" - that or bore them to death - by getting into more specific details. But of course as a Christian I believe we, and all life in general, are more spiritual beings as opposed to the giant bag of watery chemical reactions our bodies are.

If there is a spiritual aspect to human existence, then why would one ignore the spiritual aspect to sex in marriage?

Either it's just about making children, or there's more to it than that.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 124
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 124
Hello,

I offer my own very brief rumination on a possible biblical warrant for Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Quote
(I Corinthians 7: 1-9) Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife: and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render the debt to his wife: and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 4 The wife has not power of her own body: but the husband. And in like manner the husband also has not power of his own body: but the wife. 5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one has his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.
NFP strikes me as concordant with St. Paul's words above.

Peace in and out,
Irenaeus

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Irenaeus
Hello,

I offer my own very brief rumination on a possible biblical warrant for Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Quote
(I Corinthians 7: 1-9) Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife: and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render the debt to his wife: and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 4 The wife has not power of her own body: but the husband. And in like manner the husband also has not power of his own body: but the wife. 5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one has his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.
NFP strikes me as concordant with St. Paul's words above.

Peace in and out,
Irenaeus

One can heed St. Paul's wise advise and refrain from relations and pray (sexual fasting, one might say) consensually, for a time, while using artificial contraception.

What he said has nothing to do with NFP. You could just as easily say "Artificial contraception conforms with St. Paul's instructions".

One concerns a fasting when the couple so decides, and the other is mandated by biological cycles.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 124
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 124
Dear jjp,

My point was to show consistency of NFP with St. Paul's advice and not to differentiate between NFP and artificial methods of contraception. By artificial I refer to methods that deliberately impair the fertility of any act of vaginal intercourse.

God's peace,
Irenaeus

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Irenaeus
Dear jjp,

My point was to show consistency of NFP with St. Paul's advice and not to differentiate between NFP and artificial methods of contraception. By artificial I refer to methods that deliberately impair the fertility of any act of vaginal intercourse.

God's peace,
Irenaeus

I understand. My point was that there are also other methods equally consistent with what St. Paul says.

Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5