|
3 members (Fr. Al, 2 invisible),
103
guests, and
15
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
It's not the Patriarch of the Ukrainians. It's not, but for just about any reason you can think of except politics, shouldn't it be? I agree, but we live with and rejoice with what is so we can be about the work of the Lord.
Last edited by carson daniel lauffer; 09/03/11 12:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
The legitimate patriarch of the Ruthenians ought to be (based on the historical record), the Archbishop of Constantinople. However, the Rusyn have lived on the dark side of the Carpathians for so long that they have gotten used to having no real authority higher than the diocese--and they like it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760 |
The legitimate patriarch of the Ruthenians ought to be (based on the historical record), the Archbishop of Constantinople. However, the Rusyn have lived on the dark side of the Carpathians for so long that they have gotten used to having no real authority higher than the diocese--and they like it that way. JDC He means the Pope of Rome who has abandoned titles like "Patriarch of the West" and a lot of other trappings likely to irritate the Orthodox. Stop quibbling. The pope isn't rightly your patriarch. You're kind of orphaned. It's part of the problem.[quote] [quote=Paul B] It's not the Patriarch of the Ukrainians. It's not, but for just about any reason you can think of except politics, shouldn't it be? I consider these comments to be condescending and uncharitable, as well as inaccurate. If we truly were an autocephalous Church with no Patriarch then why would approval of our bishops go through Rome, along with official presence the Apostolic Nuncio at the installation? Soo many comments on this forum are critical of Rome having to approve much of our Church's actions...now you say we have no one (Patriarch) to answer to?  Even an orphan can have a stepfather. And what substance is the Ruthenian (Europe OR USA) GC Church being subject to the Patriarch of Kyiv-Halych based on? Definitely not historical nor ecclesistical reasons, but ONLY political. So, that is my two cents. I won't address this subject anymore on this thread, but will return to the original subject. Fr Deacon Paul
Last edited by Paul B; 09/03/11 03:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760 |
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. Athanasius, Your point are well taken, but we should clarify the "intrinsic immoral" point. This quote is from the USCCB's booklet "Faithful Citizenship": 22. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. Except for when a chemical or surgical abortion is performed with the intention of killing the conceived child, artificial or natural birth control is not an intrinsic evil. Fr Deacon Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610 |
Even an orphan can have a stepfather.
And what substance is the Ruthenian (Europe OR USA) GC Church being subject to the Patriarch of Kyiv-Halych based on? Definitely not historical nor ecclesistical reasons, but ONLY political. Paul, I know and care little for the history and the politics. I am not involved culturally one bit, and I'm not even a member of either Church. But if you're going to have a step-father, (leaving aside all touchy subjects of geography, history, culture, and linguistics) it seems perfectly sensible to have one who celebrates the same liturgy, with all that entails. That's all. But whatever. Sorry to have caused offense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760 |
The centerpiece of this thread is the article, "Can Contraception Make America Better?"
HAS contraception made America better? Secularists, as a knee-jerk reaction, would say it definitely has; "what's wrong with it?"
But the article brings up valid points about divorce and weakening of the family.
Is the cost of legal and child custody costs brought about by recreational sex outweighed by contraception's economic benefits?
Has poverty been reduced because the poor have access to birth control?
Have "fatherless" families made America better or more impoverished?
Has contraception and resultant abortion (because now we have "unwanted" children) increased or decreased the self-esteem of women?
Has contraception enabled the goal of sexual equality?
Is America interested in an objective, unbiased study of the question "Is America better because of Contraception? Can an evaluation be made without it turning into criticism of "Humanae Vitae." (We can't even seem to do it on this "eastern Christian" forum.)
Fr Deacon Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
Of course, most of the trends that Fr. Deacon Paul identifies actually originated long before the pill, and have much deeper, more multi-dimensional causes than contraception. The pill may have accelerated the process, but it was already well underway before the 1960s--its roots, in fact, go back as far as the First World War. I wrote something on this for First Things, a while back: Beyond the Pill: Looking for the Origins of the Sexual Revolution [ firstthings.com] . Blaming contraception for a broad-based social phenomenon is just reductionist.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
For those who like animated statistical graphs, here is one from a site called Gapminder World [ gapminder.org] . It shows trends in fertility from 1800 to 2010. I have it set to show a set of representative Catholic and Orthodox countries, as well as the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and India. You can select additional countries or delete others by clicking on the "select" menu to the right of the screen. Notice that in almost all countries, industrialization leads to lower fertility rates. Note also how economic depressions and wars also result in rapid drops in fertility. In the case of the United States, our fertility rate began dropping almost on the day the ink dried on the Constitution. In other countries, industrialization first led to increases in fertility (more live births due to better nutrition and sanitation), but then fertility also begins to drop. One should contemplate why this is universally true, regardless of ethnicity, geography or religion, not to mention how and why it began happening long before the pill--long before contraception of any sort was "legal" in most countries.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760 |
Stuart,
Very interesting; you are correct; the data is so diluted that decreasing fertility appears to have many causes.
However, take another look. There was no data for Sub-Sahara Africa until the late 1960's. At that time the fertility rates were rising (probably because of better data). But look waht happened after the US and UN began its de-population war through abortion and contraception. The rates have been plummeting! When you look at better data the truth is clear.
The countries that I looked at individually were Zambia, Monzambique, Botswana, Chad and Equatorial Guinea. The same trend holds for non-Muslim Asian nation Bhutan.
Enlightening?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
Fertility rates rose largely because women ceased dying in child birth. So, prior to the 1960s, in many sub-Saharan countries, a woman would die in childbirth after her second or third child--afterwards she could continue having children right up to menopause (or until she died of malaria, dengue fever or some other endemic disease.
The rates for central Africa are still high, but began falling rapidly in the 1980s not due to population programs, but because of AIDS.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760 |
Stuart, are you sure you're not Rusyn? You have the stubborness  So what about Bhutan in Asia????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
If I was going to pick a country in which government population control policies bore fruit independent of economic reform, I would have to point to just two: China, in which government coercion was used to enforce a one-child policy (with catastrophic results); and Iran. Iran is rather the more interesting, since the government did not use coercive methods (how odd!). At the beginning of the 1990s, the TFR in Iran was more than 7, and, because of the government's own economic policies, there simply was no employment for the explosion of young people coming into the labor market. The Mullahs issued a fatwah explaining that contraception was perfectly consistent with Islam (who knew?), and the people snapped up all the pills, condoms, diaphrams, IUDs, patches and other devices the government made available for next to nothing. Within a decade, the TFR of Iran was down to 1.7.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760 |
Eugenics is alive and well in the "civilized" world. There is an influential segment of the academia and environmental groups who believe that the earth is overpopulated and must be pruned to allow the "worthy" minority. They will save the earth and weed out the ignorant and defective peoples who deprive the earth and themselves of precious resources. This is done under the banner of eliminating poverty. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Mary Sanger, was a eugenics proponent. Pres-elect Obama's people had a "yes we can" website which lobbied for the most important changes to strive for; in these threads the eugenics theme and bitter hatred for Deists was very prevalent. There is much more to abortion and artificial birth control than sexual liberation. The Nazi Holocaust was a shocking extreme of Neo-Malthusianism. For more information look up "Malthusian League" on wikipedia. This is the force which battle pro-life people and the Church. Fr Deacon Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
"...in these threads the eugenics theme and bitter hatred for Deists was very prevalent."
I agree with what you've written, Father Deacon, but I had never read anything about the quote above. I don't think we like the Deists much either or at least their positions about an absentee God. But what does her hatred of Deists have to do with this issue? You didn't mean "hatred of Theists" did you?
|
|
|
|
|
