Posted on 02/15/2007 2:16:28 PM PST by NYer
The Early Church Fathers were undivided in their condemnation of artificial birth control. In fact, all Christian churches were in agreement on this until 1930.
Letter of Barnabas
Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, "Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness" (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).
Clement of Alexandria
Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).
To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature (ibid. 2:10:95:3).
Hippolytus
[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion] (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 225]).
Lactantius
[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).
God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring (ibid. 6:23:18).
Epiphanius
They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).
John Chrysostom
[l]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet) and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization] (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).
Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws? (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).
Jerome
But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).
You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion] (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).
Augustine
This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her, is joined to the man to gratify his passion (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).
You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [I Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).
For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny (ibid. 22:30).
Caesarius
Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).
"Thought you might be interested."
Most definitely..... I'm tiring of my protestant baptist roots, and am looking for a place to raise my children in... a church that holds to more biblical stances... my biggest issues are:
DIVORCE(how did the protestant offshoot start in the 1st place?)
ALCOHOL(not biblical to ban it, and having grape juice for the Lord's Supper is not the way He did it)
ABORTION(murder)
BIRTH CONTROL(chemical abortion... and again.... murder)
While I disagree with many other things that the Catholic Church is doing/has done, I can't avoid the fact that they are in the right places in the above issues, and my Baptist roots ARE NOT(with the exception of physical abortion).
So please, ping on!
*************
I confess there are other Catholics with far more knowledge about NFP than I. However, I believe the practice of NFP couldn't be further from the conclusion of the other poster.
From the USCCB site:
"Helping couples to deepen conjugal love and achieve responsible parenthood is part of the Church’s total pastoral ministry to Catholic spouses. Fulfillment of this ministry includes both education and pastoral care. This means “instilling conviction and offering practical help to those who wish to live out their parenthood in a truly responsible way” (Familiaris consortio, #35).
Natural Family Planning (NFP)
NFP is an umbrella term for certain methods used to achieve and avoid pregnancies. These methods are based on observation of the naturally occurring signs and symptoms of the fertile and infertile phases of a woman's menstrual cycle. Couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy abstain from intercourse and genital contact during the fertile phase of the woman's cycle. No drugs, devices, or surgical procedures are used to avoid pregnancy.
NFP reflects the dignity of the human person within the context of marriage and family life, promotes openness to life, and recognizes the value of the child. By respecting the love-giving and life-giving natures of marriage, NFP can enrich the bond between husband and wife.
(Standards for Diocesan Natural Family Planning Ministry, p. 23)
Email us at nfp@usccb.org Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3070 © USCCB. All rights reserved.
For more on the subject:http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/nfp/
LOL!
With respect, that is wrong in multiple ways. All wisdom is ascribed to the Word Incarnate in both the Latin Church and in the Byzantine diaspora. The participatory model you describe does not exist juridically throughout Orthodoxy. Nor does it exist de facto. The laity of God are faithful to the guidance of their spiritual fathers. The approbation of the laity is not a factor determining the veracity of any doctrine, dogma, teaching, or instruction in Orthodoxy. That is simply an elegant sounding myth of the sort that Anglicans tell. The Ecumenical Councils are dependent upon the Holy Spirit guiding the conciliar fathers, and the laity of God are in turn dependent upon the conciliar fathers. They have no independent action or veto as your post implies. Either they are faithful or they are faithless to the teachings (inclusive of dogma, doctrine etc.) of the Church.
Good points. I DO believe that the Lord has established that HE is in control of the womb(tell me otherwise and I ask that you read the Holy Scriptures AGAIN)
While I don't struggle with the thought of adultering the marital act with barrier/chemicals(don't do it and haven't done it), I do see your point.... still, what CAUSES the adulteration? Is it the physical condom, or the INTENT behind the condom. I contend that it is the latter. You wash the cup but are dirty on the inside.
Still, I don't equate rebelling against God's plan for procreation and substituting YOUR OWN PLAN with MURDER. Beware! Oral contraception and all other hormonal methods of 'contraception' is chemical MURDER of the Lord's little human creations.
Beware.
I take issue with chemically killing the conceived child. 90+ percent of people worldwide don't.
Good point, you can view NFP as sacrificial while other methods as incomplete.
""What does this word mean? : "theologoumenna"
Its the plural of theologoumennon. :)"
You're a smart-aleck! But I figured it out from a post later in the thread. ;)
The False Union of Florence?
"You're a smart-aleck!"
As I find myself constantly reminding all you good Western Christians, Greeks are very bad people. That's why God determined to have the NT written in Greek. :)
"Take a look at the iconoclast issue. If the lay people had blindly followed the Patriarch, there would been no resolution to it."
That's a good example. The rejection of the Calvinist leanings of the Pat. Cyril Lucaris is another. Indeed, given the history of heretical hierarchs in the East, The Church would not have survived without a system wherein the laity acted as the guardians of Orthodoxy. It is precisely this system which gives Orthodoxy its well known theological and ecclesiological conservatism.
So here's the most common thing I HEAR from my friends who bow out of the race..... who decide that their quiver is 'full enough' and opt for vasectomy, etc....
-----the last birth or two were really hard on the mother... the doctors really warned about trying to have any more children, etc----
There are some real issues to explore here..... is it biblically permissible to opt for sterilization when there are legitimate health concerns? This is very similar to the emotional plea of rape/incest and abortion. Is it OK to kill a person if they are the result of rape/incest? This is a moral absolute.... NO.
But is God's plan for procreation present a moral absolute? Is it absolutely forbidden to play with God's procreative plan? To substitute OUR OWN PLAN for his?
Good questions. I know my wife and I don't interfere with God's plan for OUR procreation, but I can't say that I wouldn't suspend it if there were LEGITIMATE health concerns. Are bowing to these concerns a lack of faith? Is the Lord capable of closing the womb? Of course....
Hard questions.
Still, I think that this card(the 'hard on the mother' card) is played WAY TOO MUCH. And why? Because no one will argue with you on that one!
OK.... being a doctor myself(doctor of pharmacy) I am acutely aware of the fact that women are always advised to stop having more children by their doctors. Our obstetricians always seem to. Thankfully we have not had health concerns, and our Lord has blessed us with healthy children.
Also, women are almost ALWAYS put on birth control right after giving birth because 'it's not healthy to have children too close together'. (DON'T use the minipill while nursing... it is perhaps the WORST abortifacient oral contraceptive that you can take)
Our western society and its SELFISH DESIRES pushes childless families and families with just one or two children because they want it all...
Beware of the love of self.
But we are made in the image and likeness of God. We are able to love with life giving love, as the Creator loves. To remove the life from love would be to lower ourselves, to fail to live as our nature requires. That is an impediment to salvation.
Similar to how the divorce rate among those who use NFP is less than one percent.
It's good to hear of low divorce rates among American Orthodox. Interestingly I heard from Michael Medved, and he has the links, that the divorce rate for couples (man and woman) who marry for the first time is around 30% according to census bureau statistics. The 50% comes in from those marry two, three, four times.Good to keep in mind when particular people argue that no one takes marriage seriously any more.
The intent of Natural Family Planning is to use the natural rises and falls in fertility to regulate or achieve pregnancy.
As I said, it is a distinction without a difference.
There is a difference. NFP does nothing to your fertility. It does not break your body, it does not cause it to cease to function as it was created to. NFP does not separate life from love. There is nothing different between the act that produces a child and one that doesn't. The couple has not choosen to, by their own actions, to destroy their capability to love with life giving love, and so mirror the Creator.
So the intent is the same as contraception which impedes fertilization without being abortiofacient.
I can attest that NFP works very well. And thank God it does because seven weeks postpartum my fertility returned, and it has been a very hard birth. We were able to postpone pregnancy and allow me to recover.
I do think it is Biblically permissable to regulate birth. God gave us simple indications of fertility and a natural rise and fall in fertility. But you always have to love the whole person, including their God given ability to bring life into this world.
Yes, and no. It depends on how it is "spun", but for most couples that I know using NFP, most of them are using it to avoid pregnancy. So, as FL said, the intent is the same as using a condom or other non abortiofacient birth control.
Which raises a bit of a quandary. While the stated reason for using NFP is "only in grave necessity", that is left vague enough that some interpret it as "I want a bigger boat, so no more kids".
--"So the intent is the same as contraception which impedes fertilization without being abortiofacient.--"
'Contraception'(hormonal contraception... 'the pill') DOES impede fertilization, BUT it is also abortifacient a good percentage of the time...... well over 90% of the time with some products, but all products are most definitely strongly abortifacient to achieve that 'efficacy'.
While the intent is the same, I wouldn't equate NFP with OCP's ANY DAY.
Murdering children and shunning children are two completely different things all together.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.