Replies

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?

If they remarry outside of the Church anyway, may they still take the sacraments?

I think the largest issue in communication is this. You have a church which has black and white laws, this is allowed, and this is not.

We have a church in which people are considered on an individual basis for many issues, and many other issues are expected to be part of their spiritual growth, and a person entering the Orthodox church, in general, is expected to take several years just to get a grasp of it all.

The decisions made in our churches are, for the most part, made between a spiritual father, one who knows us well and even intimately, and the parishioner. Because we have these really close and special relationships with our clergy, because we are a church which relies on intuition, insight, and other spiritual kinds of decision-making instead of something written in a book, and because we see the canons as *guidelines*, not laws, we just are not able to say yes or no to many of your questions.

Both Monkfan and Kolokotronis tried to explain this, and did it well, I think. I don't know why I am trying to lamely follow in their footsteps, but there it is.

What I hope is not being revealed in your postings is a need for a church to be evaluated based on what they allow and what they do not allow. This, forgive me, is a very sad statement. And yes it is Pharisiacal. Extremely so.

Very well put. As a fellow layman, this is generally how I understand it. The only differences I might have are that on issues of marriage and procreation, what the "rules" are is important, as marriage is one of the sacraments. One of seven. Obviously very important stuff. The letter of the law is the spirit of the law. This is different than say, someone missing Church on Sunday because they're so sick they can't leave bed or because they had to rush someone to the ER. Forcing someone to go to Church in such circumstances would be violating the spirit of the law, in favor of the letter. This is touched upon in some of Christ's parables and sayings. Specifically I am thinking of the Good Samaritan, where some sort of Jewish holy man refused to help the wounded man because it would make him unclean.

As to why Natural Family Planning is OK, it's really because in trying to minimize pregnancy, there is nothing that actually prevents the act from being completed in a way favorable to God.

The purpose of sex biologically is to reproduce, and spiritually is to increase human love

I think that says it all! Sex is of flesh and love is of spirit. Sex in itself is not an expression of love. In marriage, it becomes a statement of love not as an act or "deed" but in the fact that it is reserved only for one's spouse out of love.

That exclusiveness, then, continues as a meaningful expression of love for the spouse even when the biological function is no longer valid, or when such function has been severed.

Thus, the act itself is not an expression of love, but being reserved only for the spouse is. Contraception, whether it is mechanical, chemical or "natural" (and all contraceptive methods have a certain failure rate -- all) is an intentional act of preventing "nature" from creating new life. Just as killing in self defense is not seen as killing with intention to murder, it is the intent that is shared by all forms of contraception, including the Catholic method approved by the RCC.

Condoms break and birth-control pills fail (i.e. under antibiotics, or because of missed doses), and it all ends up being "in the hands of God," hands we can never escape. It amuses me that Catholics think that somehow our methods can "fool" or render God helpless to intervene, should He so desire and that your rhythm method somehow renders you more vulnerable to the "hands of God!"