"What do you object to?"
I don't object to any part of it. It isn't dogma in my church. I do object to a system which declares ex cathedra a dogma which the Laos tou Theou clearly have rejected and which then persists in that dogma. As you know, in Orthodoxy, no proclaimed dogma is accepted as dogma until the Laos tou Theou proclaim their "Axios" by living out that dogma in their lives. The Latin faithful have done quite the opposite when it comes to Humanae Vitae. But they and the Latin Church, have no way to deal with that situation. That, MB, breeds contempt for all dogma, let alone teachings which are in the category of theologoumenna.
" Not every act of love must result in pregnancy, but every act of love must mirror the life giving love of the Creator.
I don't know the Orthodox position on this."
The ban on artificial birth control is not dogmatic. It is theologoumennon. In any event, Orthodoxy leaves the issue to the couple and their spiritual father/bishop.
Axios
theologoumennon
Got to run, but will respond later, in the mean time, I so don't know what these terms mean....care to dumb it down to my level? :)
If my understanding is correct, the laity did not begin to reject the ban on ABC until they saw that other Christians were beginning to permit it, and even then any deviations prior to the release of the encyclical were due to the anticipation that Pope Paul VI would "change the doctrine" to "bring the Church in line with the times."
That's how I understand it... I don't know firsthand because I wasn't there, as I wasn't born yet.
Also, so far as ABC and the Orthodox goes, would it not be more prudent, considering both the side effects even of the non-abortifacient methods and the arguments from the Fathers as provided, to suggest NFP? Would this not especially be so if there is any doubt concerning it as a doctrine of the ancient Church (as Paul VI and Catholics since have claimed?)
(Just some thoughts I had)
K, given all that you have ever posted about Orthodoxy, I can't for one minute begin to accept that a "spiritual" father/bishop, would approve a couple to practice contraception, given what we know about "the pill".
Birth control pills are routinely described as "contraceptives", that is, things that prevent conception, the beginning of a new human life. But in fact birth control pills sometimes act as "abortifacients", things that cause abortion.
Birth control pills act in three basic ways: (This information can be obtained from any standard reference work, such as the Physician's Desk Reference.)
The newer low-dose pills are less effective at preventing ovulation and therefore rely more on the remaining two functions. As an egg is microscopic, it can be difficult to tell in any given case whether an egg really has been released. But Dutch gynecologist Dr Nine Van der Vange made an extensive study of women using these pills. She found proof that an egg had been released in 4% of the cases, and found follicle growth typical of what one finds in early pregnancy in at least 52% of cases.
The workings of the mini-pill are not fully understood, but it appears to allow ovulation at least 40% of the time, according to Emory University's Contraceptive Technology. Ovulation expert Dr. John Billings estimates that between 2 and 10 per cent of a woman's cycles are still ovulatory even when she is taking the Pill. That means there is a chance she can still conceive a child; but because of the Pill's effect on the lining of the womb, the child will not be able to implant, and will be expelled from the mother's body. Although this might seem to be a small percentage risk, over time the likelihood is great. Moreover, there really is no such thing as a "negligible" risk of aborting a baby. In this case, any risk is too great.