I then tried to clear up the misconceptions that the Orthodox Church gives a carte blanche to all contraception and so I posted a lengthy article, which included a retrospective view of orthodox Church's position in medieval Russia to show that Church's policies on sexuality and human nature are not part of the Holy Tradition but a tradition of men who made it up as they went along. Consequently, it morphed through ages to fit the social and political correctness of present realities. Thus, the RCC now allows sex for pleasure of a married couple but with a caveat. The orthodox Church has no uniform teachings. destro defended the right of each bishop to make a call, depending on individual case-basis. I agree. The whole thread was to dispel misconceptions about our lack of 'doctrine' about contraception, and being linked to Protestants. Then came some sweeping generalizations about the OC knowing human nature and all that.
Again, not stuck on it -- just responding responsibly to other people's comments to clarify and ask. But thanks for your concern.
kosta50 wrote: "I got on this thread because, as you know Catholics claim that it's against God's law to use contraceptives -- but they won't tell me which law that is."
Well, I'll tell you what I think, from my own Catholic perspective, for what it is worth. And if a Bishop or other ordained clergy of the Church wishes to contact me directly to correct my errors, if there are any, and discipline me for stating what follows, I will certainly listen and obey. If some other member of the Catholic laity wants to start presuming to administer discipline to me, on the other hand (as some have presumed to do on this board, although not on this thread), then I would demur by politely asking by what authority he presumes to command a peer.
Here is what I think the Catholic position on birth control is: The purpose of sex biologically is to reproduce, and spiritually is to increase human love. Now, certainly unmarried people can love each other, but God has told us not to share that love in its sexual form outside of marriage. God has his reasons, and they are many. One of them is that sex produces children, and children outside of the bond of marriage tend to suffer, and inflict a burden upon the mother, especially, which clouds and sours the love both between the adults and the child. Birth control outside of the bonds of marriage, then, is nothing but an enabler of fornication without the consequences of unwanted children - a very, very POWERFUL natural deterrent to fornication in the age before birth control.
Within marriage, the problem of birth control is still a problem of abridging love. Married couples express love through sex. They also do so by raising and nurturing the children who naturally come through sex. Putting a barrier up there so that the children do not come is abridging one of the functions of sex, sealing off an avenue for the expression of love. And it is often a bit more than that, for it is very frequently true...indeed, it is USUALLY true, that one partner in his or her inner heart, desires more children than the other. In the interest of domestic tranquility, and so that sex does not become a burden and a source of hostility, the one who does will often suppress her/his feelings on the subject in deference to the other's, and will allow the use of birth control to prevent the very thing that she/he secretly desires. This too damages the full expression of love, at its core. In the absence of birth control, the mother whose heart's desire is the third child that the father does not really want is not as frustrated when it doesn't happen, because it was in the hands of God. By contrast, if the man insists on wearing a condom, he is frustrating her desires and one of the things she earnestly would like to see occur as the result of their lovemaking, and thereby abridging love. People are not sophisticated, mature or rational enough as creatures to be able to fully talk these things out, and even if they were, the two positions are not likely to change. One will be imposed upon by the other if birth control is used, and this will leave a wound, even if it is completely understood and "agreed to". We all agree to adhesion contracts all the time, but we would change the terms if we could. With birth control it is no different. Leaving conception in the hands of God has the effect of removing the negotiation and secret wounds from people.
That is why there is ultimately loving wisdom behind the position of the Church on birth control. The only place it really matters is between married couples: the unmarried are not supposed to be fornicating anyway. And it is among married couples, especially, that suppressed desires about childbearing are most likely to leave deep, unexpressed wounds and scars if one "gets his way" (or her way) and the other is deprived of children s/he craves through the outward, intentional act of contraception.
The Church's position avoids these wounds and leaves it up to God.
Now, all of that said, the Church can certainly change its mind if this just doesn't work. The purpose is to help protect and protect human love. But if the doctrine really doesn't work, then it is a disciplinary rule, and disciplinary rules can be, and have been, changed over and over again over the course of history.
Why is the "rhythym method" -"Vatican Roulette" - allowed, then?
I would say because it is not wholly effective, and therefore things are still left in the hands of God.
Now I have a query, does the Orthodox Church allow divorced people to remarry in the Church? If they remarry outside of the Church anyway, may they still take the sacraments?