Interesting, isn't it though, how when a thread about the original Latin deviation from the Faith expressed in the Creed comes up how they turn the discussion to the hard line taken by papacy on a few matters of morality, rather than actually engaging the topic at hand.
What is really mystifying is that our Catholic Moral Theology handbooks explicitly call it birth control and contraception. They denote, however, that it is natural, and not artificial.
I can't see why my fellow Catholics get all worked up about this.
That is because most Catholics neither know nor care about the filioque. All the more reason it should be explained away as something intended to be in line with Blachernae's Tomus of 1285, which is the basic intent of this article.
The Orthodox are right - Rome needs to make the steps forward to unity, since they caused the problem with the interpolation (we can hardly demand the Orthodox give up the received faith - that hasn't worked for about 1200 years now). That can only occur by making a useful theological demonstration that what is intended by the filioque is what was explained by Gregory II and St. Gregory Palamas (which the Orthodox have patiently tried to do for us). In other words, Palamism needs to be synthesized inside Thomism to bring the Latin Catholics around to the position already inhabitated by the Melkite and Byzantine Catholics.
Gennadius Scholarius observered the only problem with Aquinas was that he held to the filioque, and was a Barlaamite on the Divine Energies. The two questions are really related.