www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Marriage, Science, and Birth Control

Glory to Jesus Christ,

My dear brother in Christ. Because this thread is on a Christian forum we should have an Eastern Christian bias.
Sure, it's a human decision to abort, to reduce a human person to a tool or parasite. You state an obvious view. Another obvious view that you didn't state is that there is evil, as St Paul spoke of at Ephesus:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Eph 6:10-12)

Our Christian love must be shared with others, friends and enemies, to be concerned with their spiritual welfare. This is the centerpiece of being pro-life. Respect for all human life is love. Therefore, we are called to share the Light and gifts which God has given us. Therefore:

Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day...Stand therefor, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace, above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. Eph6:13-16

The point of the article is that the "reproductive rights" motive is evil driven. It reduces motherhood and fatherhood as something unnatural; something that only privileged persons who are economically satisfied should partake of. This cannot be defended on a Christian forum, at least it shouldn't be, except when taking the "devil's advocate" position.

If we are silent or accept this lifestyle then who will hold it back? Who will speak up for families, for our brothers' and sisters' spiritual welfare and against the seductive temptations of the Evil One? Who will remind people that God is Love, that He created each on of us with special talents that are to be respected?

Thanks for considering this position.

Fr Deacon Paul

jjp,

Condoms, guns, cars, houses--in short, things that are man-made, are made for a purpose. It therefore follows that when we talk about something that is man-made, we are always necessarily talking about people using that item for its intended purpose.

That is why your comments seem to be disingenuous: "The existence of condoms does not destroy families." Condoms do not exist in a vacuum, nor are they a naturally-occurring item that man has adopted for his own purposes. They exist precisely because of their intended use. People don't buy condoms and then say to themselves, hmmm--I wonder what I can do with these things.

We are surrounded by so much political correctness that we often fail to perceive the fallacies in this kind of reasoning. Let's not fall into that trap!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Thank you Father Deacons. Your patience far surpasses mine.

I think jjp's point is that contraceptives (including condoms) would not have any bad effects on families and society if those individuals who use them did not wish to do so.

I wonder if anyone doesn't already know that? A car wouldn't run over something if the driver didn't drive it. Grass wouldn't get mowed if someone didn't mow it. Gardens would not get harvested if no one ever chose to harvest them. Condoms are only elongated balloons unless someone chooses to use them for their intended purpose. Can we talk about the issue and not get distracted?

In other words, you want people to participate in the discussion according to your terms, or not at all.

While I’m in basic agreement with much of the article, I believe that it overlooks a distinction that exists with respect to the various reasons why people use contraceptives.

It seems to me quite clear that there are those who use contraceptives so that they can engage freely in extra-marital sex and avoid the undesired but entirely natural consequence of pregnancy. Then, there are those who use contraceptives within the context of marriage for the purpose of limiting or spacing the number of children.

Of course, if contraception is intrinsically immoral, in either case, sin is involved. However, the two sets of reasons for using contraception are distinct, and should be approached with the recognition that they are distinct.

Those in the former group need to be persuaded or helped to understand that marriage is the only proper context for sexual relations, while those in the latter group need more effective catechesis concerning Church teaching concerning the proper use of one’s sexual faculties within the context of marriage. I don’t think that they will at all be persuaded by being told that their use of contraception within what may otherwise be a faithful, loving marriage (in which their children are loved and cherished) is contributing to the destruction of families.

I forgot about this thread for a while, sorry to have not responded sooner.

I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that I perhaps did not stress effectively enough that I was referring to a quote in this discussion thread. I attempted to stress this point, but was not effective in doing so. I was not commenting on the article. So to answer Paul B, I understand the point of the article, but it is not what I was addressing in my comments.

The point I have been attempting to make is in response to CDL's statement that "contraception destroys families." I do not share in the view that contraception is inherently sinful, which is implied in his statement. I instead attempted to emphasize that it is *people* and the sin of those people that destroys families. The distinction is philosophical, not grammatical. If you include contraception in the category of sin, so be it. To say that contraception destroys families is to accept that it is sinful as a premise, which I question.

I realize that my position is in disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church and the sensibilities of some Eastern Christians as well.

Hopefully this has added some clarity.

If I were five years old and wished not to be taken seriously I would think he is participating. I don't think he is participating. That's my last word on this subject to you or the other fellow who doesn't take the topic seriously.

Some things never change. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and CDL shows a general lack of common courtesy (not to even get into the realm of Christian charity) towards those who dare disagree with him.

I suppose that anyone who disagrees with you on anything doesn't take the matter seriously. Funny that you should imply that JJP and I are on the level of a five year old. Something about living in glass houses comes to mind. Really, Dan, you ought to learn how to disagree with people without being so rude about it.

I don't see that either of you are disagreeing with me. Nor do I disagree with you. Insult me if you must but please don't misrepresent what any of us are doing.

Let me amend that. I see that JJP is not trying to set forth a Catholic position on contraception. Ok. I disagree but at least that does state a position related to the topic. The use of artificial contraception places ones will in the place of God's will. As such it makes the union between the two less stable and as such hurts the family. The closer we are to God the closer we are to each other. That is truth and Catholic teaching.

The only thing I would change about the above is that it is the Roman Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Church is a communion of churches, and not all of them are this dogmatic in their approach to contraception. We do them, as well as the fullness of the Catholic Church, a disservice when we interchange Roman Catholic teaching with that of the entire Church so casually. Whether or not these churches should similarly define contraceprion as such might be fodder for a different thread, I realize that by bringing this up I risk derailing this thread about the article, although they are related somewhat.

I also recognize that the Roman Catholic Church may not realize that its teachings are not normative across the entire Church.

Keep it civil and charitable, gentlemen.

Many years,

Neil

I don't think I've ever heard this argument made as it applies to this question. Still you may have a point. Could you share some Eastern Catholic teaching on this matter? In the interim I will put this question to my priest. I'm convinced to this point that there is a direct line from artificial birth control to the wide acceptance of abortion. But I'm open to discuss it.

How do you receive "Humanae Vita" and the teachings of the Theology of the Body if one does not accept the teachings of the Catholic faith on birth control?