Contraception is Good and Needed

[JustinHesychast]

Before Orthodoxy I had a neutral opinion about contraception. Then I began to be pretty much against it, all on discretion of the priest. But recently in Ecology class we have been talking about the oh so very hopeless and depressing issue of the surging human population. The future looks bleak indeed.

Anywho, I'm starting to be very much pro-contraception. While all those homeless people in Ethiopia, India, and such should just stop screwing so much if they don't want a hundred mouths to (fail to) feed, I am starting to agree that contraception should be encourage even moreso than it currently is in developing overpopulated countries. Granted, the US is one of the most overpopulated countries (as far as damage to the earth goes), and even more people should use contraception.

OK. So now I am rambling. However, why is contraception so opposed in the Orthodox Church? I can understand this about 100+ years ago. However, with the future growing bleaker by the second and the population growing exponentially... will this status change?

EDIT: PLEASEEEE GO HERE

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/

Go there, and do the 4 Interactives listed on the website. It's what we did for ecology that really showed me the bleak future (and put me in an awfully depressed mood). They're not long, but are frightfully enlightening.

[buzuxi02]

Contraception is allowed in Orthodoxy but not all kinds and not for any reason. A couple should speak to their SF about their situation.

In Europe the population is falling as it is in Russia and Japan at a fast rate. America's population is growing because of mass immigration. It is calculated that 3 million enter America illegally from the mexican border alone.

Many parts of the world polygamy is rampant, so many children born without enough money ot land to take care of them.

Regardless, most experts believe the earth's population will peak at 11 billion then start to decline.

I take excepetion that the US harms the environment moreso than any other country. If you dont think so go and visit foreign countries. Poor land management is hardly a problem in America. Look at what happened to Greece this summer, not from natural causes but by people, and it occurs every summer.
Take a visit to Mexico city or Shanghai or Athens during a hot hazy summer day. Smog galore. And those places dont have strict emmission standards like America.

[JustinHesychast]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/

Go there, and do the 4 Interactives listed on the website. It's what we did for ecology that really showed me the bleak future (and put me in an awfully depressed mood). They're not long, but are frightfully enlightening.

[Shubunkin]

Change the governments of the world, and the people who oppress others, and then everyone could be fed. We may "spoil" much as a country, but we also throw away tons of food each year to keep the prices higher. Why do Orthodox people have to be blamed for what others have done, when contraception is only a selfish desire to not have to take care of children. It's more for a lifestyle, and not caring for life, which is a gift from God.

[Hoankan]

Changing governments alone isn't enough. Some of this stuff is cultural and in some cases it is religious. I always remember the story in Nigeria that I saw in Demography class how on one side you had the Catholic priests saying have many many many babies because that is what God wants and on the other the Imams were saying the same thing. Also polygamy is a big issue too.

[buzuxi02]

Is this what there indoctrinating students in schools nowadays?
That is one of the most liberal propagandistic websites ever. Alot of doom and gloom, but not alot on technological advances.
The two largest countries in the world have the least amount of people in them- Russia and Canada. And the cold doesnt matter as technology advances.

Sub-sahara Africa has a serious morality problem. Polygamy, and when they do gat a disease many blame their enemy for putting a curse on them or a voodoo witch doctor put a spell on their village, heck even the occasional, the 'white man' invented it so nothing anyone can do.

[authiodionitist]

What is wrong with having many children? Children are a blessing from the Lord. The concern for "rights" is not necessarily a concern for the genuine love of the Most Holy Trinity.

[JustinHesychast]

It's a great (and true) website. We did it the other day in Ecology.

[JustinHesychast]

Nothing. If Earth could support them. Plus many of the developing countries have kids dying left and right because the people still want to screw around, but don't (or can't) use contraception and don't want an abortion. Those that get (illegal, often for religious purposes, I might ad) abortions in the back-alleys often end up with infections and eventually they wind up dead.

[authiodionitist]

Nothing. If Earth could support them. Plus many of the developing countries have kids dying left and right because the people still want to screw around, but don't (or can't) use contraception and don't want an abortion. Those that get (illegal, often for religious purposes, I might ad) abortions in the back-alleys often end up with infections and eventually they wind up dead.
Life is a Mystery of Christ.

As far as the Earth supporting humanity, please re-read Cygene's post.

[Shubunkin]

And you're totally ignoring the fact that the despots in those country steal the food given through our donations, they ravage the land, and therefore the people cannot grow their own food. It's not the people who have children, or the children themselves to blame, it's their governments, the wars they cause, and the bad farming practices in some areas.

[buzuxi02]

It's a great (and true) website. We did it the other day in Ecology.
So these people on this website are afraid that by 2050 there will be 10 billion people on earth, with little resources?

They dont believe in the advancement of alternative energy sources or advanced water purification systems, or crop engineering, or the fact that new hi tech cities will be built to help disperse populations?

I dont think you need to worry about this indoctrination forced upon you by the liberal elites. Who, from what i read in your first post convinced you America is the most poluted country in the world.

[JustinHesychast]

I can see that as somewhat true. But you're not taking into account what going from 2 billion people to 6 billion people in less than 100 years has done (and is continuing to do) to the environment (and freshwater supply).

[JustinHesychast]

So these people on this website are afraid that by 2050 there will be 10 billion people on earth, with little resources?

They dont believe in the advancement of alternative energy sources or advanced water purification systems, or crop engineering, or the fact that new hi tech cities will be built to help disperse populations?

I dont think you need to worry about this indoctrination forced upon you by the liberal elites. Who, from what i read in your first post convinced you America is the most poluted country in the world.

Not the most. But certainly one of the most polluted nations. We still haven't signed the Kyoto Agreement!

Anyways, technology isn't the answer to everything. With such staggering numbers of humans, all the new developing technologies are great! I, personally, wish it would go back to the days before the Industrial Revolution where people lived in small towns and such. I hate cities. Cities are gross. (OK, end of my personal I hate cities rant... :P)

EDIT: Please forgive me if I have come out harsh or defensive in any of my posts thus far. I don't mean to if I have.

[authiodionitist]

Not the most. But certainly one of the most polluted nations. We still haven't signed the Kyoto Agreement!

Anyways, technology isn't the answer to everything. With such staggering numbers of humans, all the new developing technologies are great! I, personally, wish it would go back to the days before the Industrial Revolution where people lived in small towns and such. I hate cities. Cities are gross. (OK, end of my personal I hate cities rant... :P)
Again, what does this have to do with Christianity? Where is the love of Christ? The mercies of the Most Holy Trinity?

[Shubunkin]

Not everyone hates cities. If you hate the city then go live in the country. No one is stopping you. :)

[JustinHesychast]

What does contraception have to do with Christianity? Quite a bit, seeing that contraception (in Orthodoxy and probably Catholicism anyways) is largely not held very highly other than at the discretion of the priest. Seeing as the state of the future of Earth due to overpopulation, I feel it has a lot to do with Christianity.

Was that what you were asking? Or did your question zoom over my head and I missed it entirely? :P

[JustinHesychast]

Not everyone hates cities. If you hate the city then go live in the country. No one is stopping you. :)

Haha. I know. That was just a personal rant of mine. Like, I totally despise cities! :P

I do hope to live in the country within 4-6 years, God willing. Nothing like silence, nature, a farm, and knowing your local grocer! :D

[Shubunkin]

More pollution is made by industry a million times over than the entire population of the earth can do. You can't compare the two.

[Shubunkin]

Haha. I know. That was just a personal rant of mine. Like, I totally despise cities! :P

I do hope to live in the country within 4-6 years, God willing. Nothing like silence, nature, a farm, and knowing your local grocer! :D
I would also appreciate the country over the city. We live in the suburbs, but I'd take five acres out in the country over this any day! :P

[authiodionitist]

What does contraception have to do with Christianity? Quite a bit, seeing that contraception (in Orthodoxy and probably Catholicism anyways) is largely not held very highly other than at the discretion of the priest. Seeing as the state of the future of Earth due to overpopulation, I feel it has a lot to do with Christianity.

Was that what you were asking? Or did your question zoom over my head and I missed it entirely? :P
This is part of the Tradition. We do not discuss the Tradition publically - it is written on our hearts and lived in our lives.

With fear and trembling......

[Protoevangel]

So Justin, do you think that the overpopulation of the world will foil God's plans for man and the universe?

[Shubunkin]

We heard all of these alarms in the fifties when I was growing up. The numbers were a lot lower in those days, and they said we'd all starve within five years. Guess what, it didn't happen.

[JustinHesychast]

Big "T" tradition? (this big t little t tradition is confusing in English; are there two separate words in Greek, or Russian, or something? Just randomly curious.. :P)

Proto, no. Nothing can. But why not prevent overpopulation (which results in famine, lack of freshwater, lack of living space, death, etc.)? Why not prevent (well, do as much to minimize the impact of) global warming?

[JustinHesychast]

We heard all of these alarms in the fifties when I was growing up. The numbers were a lot lower in those days, and they said we'd all starve within five years. Guess what, it didn't happen.

Because we're in a developed nation. Take a look at developing nations.

[buzuxi02]

Justin, How about the falling populations of places like Italy and Russia and Japan? In Greece the poulation growth is virtually zero, (an influx of immigrants has slightly raised the populace) with the majority of the population living in the two largest cities, the rest of the country is empty, especially the center where no one lives, but plenty of farmable land.

That website you gave is a bunch of liberal propaganda. It criticises hi population growth, but are upset when the measures this website promotes are used, usually means the aborting of girls only. Leading to ratio imbalance. This is the clue that this is a political, ideological website. A neutral website would lament this trend but reiterate that there are still more females than males in the world.

[Shubunkin]

Because we're in a developed nation. Take a look at developing nations.
No, they said the entire population of the earth was doomed. It didn't happen. You can't blame famine on overpopulation, it's a combination of bad weather, and despotism. Check out history. You're also talking about 3rd world countries who are starving. Check out their governments, and the causes of how things work in those countries. They are not conducive to feeding their poor. We were in Spain, and a lot of widows were asking for alms. Why? Because there is no provision in that country for the elderly, especially widows who cannot provide for themselves, and their children refuse to help them. That's government's problem, not overpopulation. That's just an excuse, and even if we did as China (one child per couple) it wouldn't solve anything.

[JustinHesychast]

No clue. The website I linked does talk about Japan's declining rate (not the others), but somehow it was minimal? Or maybe declining rates in other countries are due to immigration to other developed nations? I think that's it. I can't quite remember.

[buzuxi02]

No clue. The website I linked does talk about Japan's declining rate (not the others), but somehow it was minimal? Or maybe declining rates in other countries are due to immigration to other developed nations? I think that's it. I can't quite remember.
Justin , the population will not grow forever. There are declines and plateaus.

Competent leaders are needed and education, China has had 400 million people go from poverty to middle class in ten years.

[Shubunkin]

Another case of "it's on a Web site, so it must be true." Just like, "I saw it on TV, so it must be true." :D

[JustinHesychast]

Not just a website. It's a PBS scientific learning website that is used in schools to educate youth and adults alike about the vast population growth.

buzuxi02, We went from 2 billion people to 6 billion people in less than 100 years. 4 billion in less than 100 years! Only about 300,000 in Christ's time. It's expected between 11 and 15 billion by 2050. We as humans grow in population exponentially.

[Khaleas]

Weeeeehee, where's our Rusmeister... LOL...
Seems like I'm getting more more assurance to home school any future kids...

[Hoankan]

No clue. The website I linked does talk about Japan's declining rate (not the others), but somehow it was minimal? Or maybe declining rates in other countries are due to immigration to other developed nations? I think that's it. I can't quite remember.
Just a point. Japan's population is projected to decline to pre-Meiji levels by 2050. In a few more years, over half of the population will be over 50. It's got the government and the people worried.

[fuerein]

Not the most. But certainly one of the most polluted nations. We still haven't signed the Kyoto Agreement!

Anyways, technology isn't the answer to everything. With such staggering numbers of humans, all the new developing technologies are great! I, personally, wish it would go back to the days before the Industrial Revolution where people lived in small towns and such. I hate cities. Cities are gross. (OK, end of my personal I hate cities rant... :P)

EDIT: Please forgive me if I have come out harsh or defensive in any of my posts thus far. I don't mean to if I have.
The Kyoto Agreement doesn't mean anything. We've done just as much as most of the countries that have signed the agreement. A number of countries have come nowhere near meeting their Kyoto obligations. Add that to the fact that Kyoto completely ignores the two biggest polluters, China and India, because they are 'developing nations' makes the Kyoto Agreement even more of a joke.

[Greg the byzantine]

Nothing. If Earth could support them. Plus many of the developing countries have kids dying left and right because the people still want to screw around, but don't (or can't) use contraception and don't want an abortion. Those that get (illegal, often for religious purposes, I might ad) abortions in the back-alleys often end up with infections and eventually they wind up dead.

:crosseo: Lord Have Mercy to even consider such a thing. That will never reduce suffering if that's what you think. Honestly this post makes me sick. How crazy to think that having an abortion is the solution to starvation and suffering. How is it then that children born to loving parents who have the financial means to support their children can suffer, with disease, pain, emotional trauma, phyiscal trauma.

The survival rate of children and mothers (not even that long ago) was much lower than it is now even in so called developed nations. Does that mean that the mothers should have aborted their babies in order to protect themselves from the possibility of death or suffering. Oh Lord Have Mercy.

[Shubunkin]

Not just a website. It's a PBS scientific learning website that is used in schools to educate youth and adults alike about the vast population growth.

buzuxi02, We went from 2 billion people to 6 billion people in less than 100 years. 4 billion in less than 100 years! Only about 300,000 in Christ's time. It's expected between 11 and 15 billion by 2050. We as humans grow in population exponentially.
OH wow, PBS. Well, I do watch PBS, and take half of what they say with a grain of salt. They are great entertainment. That's about all they are good for. Let's see real life first, and then get our heads grounded in truth. Then decide who's saying what is truth, and who is giving out weird warning signals to things that will not develop. I've been through so many of these alarms, and was worried for nothing! What ever happened to those things? What happened to the killer bees? What happened to the red ants that were supposed to take over the entire country only a few years ago? These all supposedly based on scientific "facts" and got a lot of scientists published and well-known, but it did not actually say anything about the truth of the future. Something else entirely different happened. It gets to where anymore if I hear these things of "doom" that will happen "soon" I just shrug it off. In the fifties, maybe sixties the scientists were saying the smog from our cars would cool the earth down until it froze over. This didn't happen. The polution was a worry over car exhaust, so emissions were worked on so they would go down. This is a good thing. However, the doomsayers still won't back down and say this did any good. I'm glad people are ecologically minded, but they should mind it for their personal work, and not demand that everyone go without children, or interfere with their reproductive life at all. That is the devil's work, anyway. We could lose half the earth's population and still have major problems. The fact is that people do a lot of things that contribute to pollution, and it is not from one thing, or a few things. It's everything. Having babies do not cause pollution of the seas, which have toxic mercury in them. Where does the mercury come from? I have heard it comes from industry, and even your dental amalgams which are removed make it to the landfill, and from there goes into the sea when it rains. Then it poisons our fish.

What I'm trying to say is you can force the population of the entire earth to use contraception, and it wouldn't change the way industry, and governments operate. The earth would continue to pollute, the oceans would continue to receive toxins into it, the food supply is becoming toxic over this, and famine would still result from poor farming practices, bad weather, and all of that. You'd still have starving people, and probably more people poor and starving because there wouldn't be a large enough financial base to do anything. It's more complicated than your teachers want you to believe. They want population to go down to simply justify their contraception measures and another excuse for abortion. It's tragic that some people have such poor value toward life. If a baby doesn't matter, than neither do the animals of the earth, and we can continue to pollute the earth. Perhaps there are other things to be more concerned about than population control.

You say "billion" like it's some horrible number. If billions of people are on the earth, how do you propose to get rid of them? I understand there is a think tank in Italy that wants to diminish the earth's population down to a fraction of what it is. I don't know why that would be necessary, but they seem to think smaller numbers are easier to control. The powers that be are afraid of large numbers of people. They are afraid because they are in power, and they have much to lose. Beware of this propaganda, for that's all it is.

[nutroll]

I don't necessarily think that the facts that you are presenting are wrong, but I think the interpretation of them is problematic. What you are assuming is that people in these developing countries are unable or unwilling to do anything without us guiding them. Do you know why people in, say, India have lots of children? Do you know that it is from a lack of prophylactics? Are you certain that they can't take care of their children? If we sent them contraceptives, would they choose to use them? Would we force them if they didn't?

Any population has a carrying capacity. Above a certain number of people, there will be innovation, migration, or deaths from starvation and lack of resources. This is a sad reality, but it is a reality. And people in such societies realize that it is a reality, and choose to bring children into the world anyway. Who are we to tell them that they can't have the children that they want?

I have no problem with the idea of making contraceptives available to people that want to make use of them, and I would actually support it in many of the AIDS ravaged countries, but I think it is a subtle feeling of superiority that drives us to think that we need to swoop in and save people from the problems that they have faced for centuries, face now, and no doubt will face for centuries to come. As Christians, we should be willing to help them, to give freely to alleviate their suffering, but not to force them not to have children.

[Shubunkin]

The Kyoto Agreement doesn't mean anything. We've done just as much as most of the countries that have signed the agreement. A number of countries have come nowhere near meeting their Kyoto obligations. Add that to the fact that Kyoto completely ignores the two biggest polluters, China and India, because they are 'developing nations' makes the Kyoto Agreement even more of a joke.
I've heard that was a joke. I wouldn't doubt it. :(

[JustinHesychast]

As far as scientific things go, I tend to take the sides of the scientists who know what they are studying as opposed to traditional church leaders (not that church tradition is bad! I'm just saying about, y'know, scientific stuff)

[Shubunkin]

Scientists are only interested in one thing. Making a name for themselves. To do that, they have to make up this wild stuff to get noticed.

[buzuxi02]

Scientists are only interested in one thing. Making a name for themselves. To do that, they have to make up this wild stuff to get noticed.
very true.

thats why they dont share informtion.

[Hoankan]

You haven't been to college yet. Yes these people may know what they are talking about, but in a great many cases their egos blind them to other possibilities. Science is very much a ego driven cause anymore and in many cases scientists will not let go of their ideas even when there is surmountible evidence showing them wrong.

One of my professors use to talk of a thesis supervisor of his who would carry a two thousand page book that was his baby (i.e. his theory). The man fought tooth and nail to disprove any claim against his baby until finally it was irrefutable that he was wrong.

Science does not know all, in fact, it knows very little. We have just scratched the surface of the wealth of knowledge about our own planet let alone the universe (I use to study this stuff rabidly).

[buzuxi02]

I don't necessarily think that the facts that you are presenting are wrong, but I think the interpretation of them is problematic. What you are assuming is that people in these developing countries are unable or unwilling to do anything without us guiding them. Do you know why people in, say, India have lots of children? Do you know that it is from a lack of prophylactics? Are you certain that they can't take care of their children? If we sent them contraceptives, would they choose to use them? Would we force them if they didn't?

Any population has a carrying capacity. Above a certain number of people, there will be innovation, migration, or deaths from starvation and lack of resources. This is a sad reality, but it is a reality. And people in such societies realize that it is a reality, and choose to bring children into the world anyway. Who are we to tell them that they can't have the children that they want?

I have no problem with the idea of making contraceptives available to people that want to make use of them, and I would actually support it in many of the AIDS ravaged countries, but I think it is a subtle feeling of superiority that drives us to think that we need to swoop in and save people from the problems that they have faced for centuries, face now, and no doubt will face for centuries to come. As Christians, we should be willing to help them, to give freely to alleviate their suffering, but not to force them not to have children.
Dear Nutroll,

I agree and notice its a 'we' verse 'them' mentality. We should give them prophylactives, we should tell them not to have kids.
What they need is economic reforms. And to embrace as entire nations morals and values. I doubt these leaders and their media promote monogamy and to marry at an appropriate age not have three wives by 16. Also many are not familiar that a kind of polygamy (not culturally accepted but condoned) is also rampant in rural areas of latin america.

[Shubunkin]

There was an archaeologist that theorized that Egypt was once a rain forest, and had a lot more water, and proved it by the drain marks on the Sphinx. What he said made a lot of sense, and that the Sphinx is a lot older than anyone has guessed up to now, and that it was actually sitting on the banks of the river when it was built. You should have seen the indignation of the other archaeologists and completely dismissed this guy's theories just because it clashed with their own theories. I was appalled. No open minds at all. Hey, that was on PBS!! :P

[Hoankan]

There was an archaeologist that theorized that Egypt was once a rain forest, and had a lot more water, and proved it by the drain marks on the Sphinx. What he said made a lot of sense, and that the Sphinx is a lot older than anyone has guessed up to now, and that it was actually sitting on the banks of the river when it was built. You should have seen the indignation of the other archaeologists and completely dismissed this guy's theories just because it clashed with their own theories. I was appalled. No open minds at all. Hey, that was on PBS!! :P

:clap: I remember that so well. Institutionalized bias.

There was a study done by some sociologists on mental health wards (insane asylums). They took graduate students who had passed psych exams perfectly and then made it appear that they had had a mental break down to get committed. Once in, these people would have a 'miraculous' recovery and try to get out. Should work since they are fully healthy anyways.

Nope. Everything that was considered healthy on the outside world was turned against them as unhealthy. They had to admit and follow the institutional standards that they were unhealthy and recovering. It took months for them to even get a chance at getting out.

Just because people have a fancy title in their name doesn't mean that they checked their ego and pride at the door. In fact it means that they probably brought it in with them.

[rusmeister]

I have to take exception to the idea that college will cure this kind of thinking (sorry, Hoankan!) It actually deepens the waters and confuses them, without a clear moral-philosophical base, so that most people come out saying all kinds of things that contradict each other.

As to the question of contraception, there are really two questions here:

1) Who is putting out the information available to you and what do THEY want you to think?

2) What are the true purposes of contraception - ie, what do I get out of it?

The first question is so big I can't answer it for you in posts. It requires understanding the philosophy driving schools, colleges and the media. That philosophy determines exactly what is said and taught. I'd just say read everything you can get your hands on by C.S. Lewis - it's a great antidote to all of the babble going on in the world! (I could also point you to my education thread, but think Lewis is a better way to pass your time for now.)

The second question is a little easier to answer - as all of the real motivations are individual. All of the talk of "We have six billion people..."* "We must stop overcrowding..." places you in the place of trying to solve the problems of the world. What makes you, a mere 30-year old, or 16-yr old, or whatever, the person who is going to solve the world's problems? You can't get agreement to solve problems in your own country, let alone the world. The idea that you CAN do so tickles your ego, but is manifestly not true.
It also has a deeper purpose. Contraception means "against conception" which means against life. You cannot have any existing life without conception. Terms like contraception and birth control are euphemisms - they mask the true nature of the beast, just as "going to the bathroom" masks the true nature of what you are going there to do, and that purpose is to prevent the birth of, and even kill children.

The primary motivation driving all of this "birth control" (what's euthanasia - "death control"?) is to obtain total freedom of the individual - including freedom from family and responsibility. The turning towards self and away from my neighbor and God. I want to do what I want to do.

Ironically, in Russia the demographics of high death and low birth rates have led the government to offer subsidies to couples who have children, and in America the earned income credit and encouragement of immigration have tried to stave off the natural consequences of a people bent on wiping themselves from the face of the earth.

*I don't know about you, but I don't have any people at all, except for my own little family. :)

[All4Christ]

At this point, I would try to accept the teaching of the church in this - at least with my own decisions regarding this. Though it is an issue of concern due to medical conditions which seriously raise chances of neurological birth defects etc. Seriously makes me worry about having children on my own. Before looking into Orthodoxy, I always imagined adopting kids. Granted - I know that is nothing like actually having my own kids....but, well...I've volunteered with a lot of people who have had those issues (mental disabilities, etc.) and - while they often have amazing attitudes - and I can learn so much from them - I still honestly don't want my children to go through that...but - that is something I will deal with when the time comes. As I'm not anywhere near being married, I don't have to deal with it at the moment :)

[All4Christ]

and yes i know this is not directly dealing with this issue. just my personal reflection on the Church's belief on this.

[Hoankan]

I have to take exception to the idea that college will cure this kind of thinking (sorry, Hoankan!) It actually deepens the waters and confuses them, without a clear moral-philosophical base, so that most people come out saying all kinds of things that contradict each other.




Actually I should be clear. I never for a moment meant that college would clarify this. What I meant to show was that things weren't as clear as he presumes about these scientists. We have a natural tendency to put them up on pedistils because of their status as professors or scientists and that they are objective when it comes to scientists. Reality is very different and a quick look at some of the college professors would reveal this.

My story about the thesis supervisor who carried around his baby or how the psychologists at the mental wards treated what would be normal human behavior as abnormal once inside the institution are examples of this as well.

[Shubunkin]

I was relieved in college that my anthropology instructor allowed us to believe what we wanted how evolution came about. No arguments, just look, these are the facts, and we at least were allowed the possibility of God involved in it. She didn't just come out and say there could be no God! I know others do that. I'm still not too sure about evolution. :P But it was an interesting class.

[Dorothea]

I'd heard the population was down in many countries such as Europe. As far as the environment. We Americans do what we can, but the rest of the countries on the planet have to deal with it their own way. We can't force them. China has lots of pollution.

[paleodoxy]

The Myth of Overpopulation by R.J. Rushdoony.

Highly recommend it.

[repentant]

The only contraception is abstinence. ANd the reason for the rising population is the out of wed lock sex and having children.

Do you people realize that if everyone in the world lived according to the Gospel, none of the bad things that happen, would happen? AIDS, unwanted pregnancy, etc. Of course by all the bad things, I mean unavoidable ones, not everything bad that happens..the world would be able to sustain us. There would be enough food, water, etc. Al Gore wouldn't have to make up the global warming lie so that he can get rich selling "carbon offsets"..lol, had to say that..

if you look at what laws and rules are in the Scriptures, and look at what happens today, you will see a connection. Did Jesus forbid fornication because he just felt like it? No he forbid it because He knew in the future there would be so many diseases that are sexually transmitted. Why are we to fast from animal products? Because meat cause us to be stimulated. Fatty meats are also have cholesterol which can cause heart disease. And there are many more examples..and if you actaully think aout things, you will see why God Commanded what He commanded..

[Orthosdoxa]

There would be enough food, water

There is. There is also enough land. The problem is distribution.

Public schools are havens of liberal indoctrination. As a former teacher, I should know. Just make sure that no matter how convincing something you learn there might seem, do at least check out the other side of the story.

[repentant]

There is. There is also enough land. The problem is distribution.

Public schools are havens of liberal indoctrination. As a former teacher, I should know. Just make sure that no matter how convincing something you learn there might seem, do at least check out the other side of the story.

You are right about the food/water..

And yes public schools are horrible. Now they teach (or so I hear) about gay being ok. Tommy has two mommy's is the in thing now...

[Michael the Iconographer]

Weeeeehee, where's our Rusmeister... LOL...
Seems like I'm getting more more assurance to home school any future kids...
Me too. Especially if the schools are teaching the junk that Justin is spewing. My tax dollars support this stuff?

[repentant]

The way I look at it..if I have kids, and I cannot afford to send them to private school (which I should) I will just keep them home, and teach them myself. Even if they do not get a HS dilploma at the end..

[Hoankan]

I wouldn't worry about that. Many of the kids who have diplomas now a days show that its true values, that of some tissue to blow your nose with.

[repentant]

You can do anything with a GED anyways...

[AJB4]

I've never encountered this issue before. What's wrong with it? I mean, why should one end up like this:

http://www.travelpod.com/users/technotrekker/overland05.1124724060.28-kids.jpg

just because one doesn't want to abstain.

[AJB4]

I mean, at the very least, what's wrong with condoms?

[Prawnik]

Orthodoxsa is correct. As it stands, the human population is quite small in global terms - you could fit the entire human population of the world, four to an acre, in an area slightly larger than the State of Texas.

Admittedly, traffic and parking might become problems if we did that. Not to mention the strip malls.

Liberals have been harping on over-population ever since Paul Ehrlich went to India. (FYI, Ehrlich was the original "Population Bomb" theorist.) After publishing his book in 1970, every single one of his predictions has failed to come true. For that matter, most commodities are cheaper today in real dollar terms than they were in 1970, so we're not "using up scare resources".

Even so, Ehrlich is still regularly trotted out as a population expert, even though he has a wretched track record and no qualifications on the subject.

Of course, considering that Silicon Valley has a higher population density than Bangladesh, but noone talks about how computer nerds and venture capitalists are overrunning the world, my theory is that "population control" really means "poor brown people control". It's just another way for rich white liberals to be racists without embarrassing themselves in public.

[repentant]

I mean, at the very least, what's wrong with condoms?

Because sex is only for married couples only (man/woman) with the possibility of children as a result.

[AJB4]

Because sex is only for married couples only (man/woman) with the possibility of children as a result.
Procreation isn't the only reason for sex. It shouldn't necessarily be part of the contract when you decide to have sex either.

[repentant]

Procreation isn't the only reason for sex. It shouldn't necessarily be part of the contract when you decide to have sex either.

Sex is for procreation, period. Everything else just comes along with it. Life is either to get married, mulitply and replensih the earth, or be celibent, and never get married. Celibacy can also be in marriages as well (St. John of Krondstat)

At the very least, even if children is not the reason for the sex (which actually would be lust, and yes even maried people can lust one another) the possibility of children should not be inhibited..

[AJB4]

Ah well, oral sex then :D.

[repentant]

Are there people here just for fun?

[Silentchapel]

Couple of simple facts:
1) People have lots of kids because they think it's a right thing to do.
2) People have lots of kids even if they don't want to since they know abortion isn't a right thing to do.
3) Kids by themselves don't pollute - unless you count breathing. Also, most poor people don't have cars. One rich man pollutes far more than an entire poor family, irrelevant how many kids they have.
4) Care to explain how this isn't robbing Earth of scarce resources:
http://www.usbjd.org/eNewsletter/images/Woman%20eating%20huge%20pile%20hot%20dogs.jpg
but this is:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20Truths/afghan_children_poor.jpg
5) People in poor countries also need children. It is sad but true, they need people who can work but don't have to be paid. Children fit the role - I'm not saying that they don't love them, or that they force a 2 month baby to work - but not having a true childhood is a small sacrifice that enables the entire family to survive.
6) The people who are worried about overpopulation are generally single, have two children (at best, and they're probably considered 'accidents'), a car, full stomachs and similar. When they say: "I'm worried about overpopulation" it really means: "I'm afraid that I might not have all the food I want". They're worried about overpopulation not because of poor dying people, but because they're afraid it might challenge their way of life.
7) Poverty causes overpopulation (developing countries don't have such birth rates, and it is one of the primary reasons Moslem countries have such high birth rates - don't think it's growth is based on conversion). Overpopulation is not solved by contraception. "Oh good, we have two kids and we can barely farm with them. Yay." In the long run, people will simlpy ditch contraception if presented to them.
8) Every bite we take and every gulp we make that we don't really need essentially means we're stealing from someone who needs it. I'm a hypocrite when I say this, but it's true.
9) As regarding "I have to solve the problem" there is a saying by St. Nicholai of Zhicha, which goes something like this:
"For world to be a better place, it has to have better states.
In order to have better states, states have to better settlements.
In order to have better settlements, settlements have to have better families.
In order to have better families, families have to have better people.
You can't change the world.
You can't change the state.
You can't change the settlement.
You can't change the family.
But you can change yourself. And by that you change the world"
Something along those lines, I can't find the original.

[JustinHesychast]

Sex is for procreation, period.

Unless there is some darn good reasoning, if this is the Church position, I do not believe it. What about people in a loving marriage where having children is physically impossible even though they want kids? And isn't sex God's gift for not only procreation but to connect to one's spouse, and a part of the whole one flesh thing?

[Silentchapel]

Unless there is some darn good reasoning, if this is the Church position, I do not believe it. What about people in a loving marriage where having children is physically impossible even though they want kids? And isn't sex God's gift for not only procreation but to connect to one's spouse, and a part of the whole one flesh thing?
I'll have to agree with Justin on this one. While sex's primary purpose is procreation, it does not mean it isn't a gift from God that allows spouses to express love for each other.
However, sterility is an exception, not a rule. What about people who can have kids but don't want to because of their busy schedule?

[Prawnik]

@Silentchapel: I thought that statement was originally by Confucius. Not that it matters.

Also, FWIW, I am not accusing Justin or AJ or anyone else here of racism. For one thing, given the current ethos, the statement "the earth is running out of room" seems as obvious as "what goes up must come down," something so self-obvious as not to need verification. You are young and respond to the culture around you and barely know you are doing so.

The people I am accusing of bad motives are those who do know the facts and have created this ethos.

[paleodoxy]

Sex is for procreation, period. Everything else just comes along with it. Life is either to get married, mulitply and replensih the earth, or be celibent, and never get married. Celibacy can also be in marriages as well (St. John of Krondstat)

At the very least, even if children is not the reason for the sex (which actually would be lust, and yes even maried people can lust one another) the possibility of children should not be inhibited..

Uhh, this wasn't my understanding of the Orthodox view.

[MamaBug]

At this point, I would try to accept the teaching of the church in this - at least with my own decisions regarding this. Though it is an issue of concern due to medical conditions which seriously raise chances of neurological birth defects etc.

This right there would turn it into a definite AYP question.

Before looking into Orthodoxy, I always imagined adopting kids.

Well, I would hope that after looking into Orthodoxy you wouldn't reconsider adopting kids... My priest, at least, is pretty enthusiastic about the idea when we've mentioned it to him. Our first child required some medical intervention to conceive and for health reasons I would rather not deliberately try to have a second one that way. We are planning on seriously pursuing this as soon as my graduate studies are done and I'm employed somewhere.

[MamaBug]

Ironically, in Russia the demographics of high death and low birth rates have led the government to offer subsidies to couples who have children

And yet, they still export about 5,000 of their children a year to the United States.

[MamaBug]

Uhh, this wasn't my understanding of the Orthodox view.
umm... mine either. For what it is worth, I pulled this of the GOARCH web site:


The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.

[paleodoxy]

As far as scientific things go, I tend to take the sides of the scientists who know what they are studying as opposed to traditional church leaders (not that church tradition is bad! I'm just saying about, y'know, scientific stuff)

You don't think scientists have philosophical and ideological presuppositions that influence the way they do science of interpret scientific data?

[paleodoxy]

Good stuff, MamaBug! :thumbsup:

[Silentchapel]

@Silentchapel: I thought that statement was originally by Confucius. Not that it matters.
Actually - quite possible. St. Nikolai seems just like the person who would be familiar with Confucius, but a typical Serbian book editor wouldn't.:)
Regardless of the source, it is true none-the-less.

[authiodionitist]

Ah well, oral sex then :D.

That is sodomy.

Sex is for procreation, period. Everything else just comes along with it. Life is either to get married, mulitply and replensih the earth, or be celibent, and never get married. Celibacy can also be in marriages as well (St. John of Krondstat)

At the very least, even if children is not the reason for the sex (which actually would be lust, and yes even maried people can lust one another) the possibility of children should not be inhibited..

Please cite your "official teaching."

Procreation isn't the only reason for sex. It shouldn't necessarily be part of the contract when you decide to have sex either.

See the poll thread on this one.

Uhh, this wasn't my understanding of the Orthodox view.

Because it's not. It is unsupported by a prayer or a Father of the Church. (not to say that Meyendorff is a father, but that he presents the Patristics on liturgy and its meaning)




Also, Silentchapel has it going on. :thumbsup:

[rusmeister]

Sex is for procreation, period. Everything else just comes along with it. Life is either to get married, mulitply and replensih the earth, or be celibent, and never get married. Celibacy can also be in marriages as well (St. John of Krondstat)

At the very least, even if children is not the reason for the sex (which actually would be lust, and yes even maried people can lust one another) the possibility of children should not be inhibited..
Uh, I lust after my wife (especially when I haven't seen her in 3 weeks!), and my conscience gives me zero trouble on this one...

[rusmeister]

And yet, they still export about 5,000 of their children a year to the United States.
At $15,000+ a whack you can bet they do.

[Orthosdoxa]

Maybe we should define lust a little more clearly. There is nothing wrong with desiring your spouse. What is wrong with "lust" is that it often implies seeing another person as an object to meet your own needs. In a good marriage, this strong desire for your spouse would therefore not technically be the same as "lust" in this sense.

[rusmeister]

Ah well, oral sex then :D.
Not to derail the thread, but I will say that this is a topic that the Church is largely silent on - the only stand I've seen taken anywhere is in Fr Stanley Harakas' book "The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers", where he says that it is not approved of.

I can see no good reason for that, except that it gives defenders of homosexual behavior a leg to stand on.

If it is a replacement for normal relations (that could result in children) that would be a problem.

PS - we've been here before; please remember that this is a public site (rated 'G' by the MPAA for you Americans) and nothing prurient should be posted here.

[rusmeister]

Maybe we should define lust a little more clearly. There is nothing wrong with desiring your spouse. What is wrong with "lust" is that it often implies seeing another person as an object to meet your own needs. In a good marriage, this strong desire for your spouse would therefore not technically be the same as "lust" in this sense.
Whew! I'm cleared of wrongdoing! Thank you, Orthosdoxa! :)

[skoi]

Before looking into Orthodoxy, I always imagined adopting kids. Granted - I know that is nothing like actually having my own kids....but,

I know this response is off topic, but we have 2 bio, one adopted, one adopted on the way (hurry up China and get that paperwork done), and having an adopted child to us is exactly like having "our own". I understand people don't feel that way, but that's just our experience.

On topic response to come maybe, but after reading a few other comments that cover the joke Kyoto is, polygamy, Developing world governmental corruption, poor land management, and rusmeister's point number 2, there might not be much for me to say. :sigh: What a blow to my over inflated sense of pride.

[Shubunkin]

I know this response is off topic, but we have 2 bio, one adopted, one adopted on the way (hurry up China and get that paperwork done), and having an adopted child to us is exactly like having "our own". I understand people don't feel that way, but that's just our experience.

On topic response to come maybe, but after reading a few other comments that cover the joke Kyoto is, polygamy, Developing world governmental corruption, poor land management, and rusmeister's point number 2, there might not be much for me to say. :sigh: What a blow to my over inflated sense of pride.
It is my experience, as well. We have two adopted sons who are our own in our feelings. I always cringe when people say what you are responding to. :o

[skoi]

Of course, considering that Silicon Valley has a higher population density than Bangladesh, but noone talks about how computer nerds and venture capitalists are overrunning the world, my theory is that "population control" really means "poor brown people control". It's just another way for rich white liberals to be racists without embarrassing themselves in public.

I agree with this, to a point. There is a lot of fear that the "poor brown people" will overwhelm us. From my days in a very radical history department in a New Jersey state university which will remain nameless, I can say it's my experience that the Leftists there loved the "brown people" as long as they were on the same revolutionary page, if not, if they were observant Catholics or Christians, forget it.

I also know very White, very upper middle class radicals from my academic days who were strong advocates of zero population growth, and still have only one or no children. I've been reading environmentalists who are now pushing that Americans, Canadians, and Europeans should have no more children-- or one at most. And we're increasingly meeting people (including relatives) who don't want kids at all because they would interfere with their lifestyle. It's nuts, really, when you think about it.

[JustinHesychast]

I have about 2 pages to catch up on. But I went and we learned more today in Ecology, plus I talked to the teacher for about 20 minutes after school.

A lot of comments here were about, y'know, who are we to force them to use contraception? Most women in these developing countries WANT contraception but it is outrageously expensive, or they don't have information about contraception. They want it! Others are barred by the oppressive religious governments.

The whole red fire ant thing? Media hype. It was an interesting scientific theory that the media played upon. And with the other "people scare", well, that was the 80's. People in the 80's were paranoid about everything. :P

As an aside, the video we continued watching was gross. Apparently girls are shameful to have in India. It interviewed all these oppressed little girls who envied their brothers that were being educated, and playing instead of working. Their parents had to decide between her education or dowry. Obviously the latter took precedence. Boys are taken to hospitals when sick, and not girls. Only one of 8,000 aborted children in India is a male.

Really gross stuff.

Anywho, feel free to ask more questions. I am going to go read the past 2 pages.

[JustinHesychast]

Also, I will ask this:

What is bad about contraception if it keeps kids educated and healthy? Wouldn't it be much better, morally, to have 2-3 (or however many you can want or afford) kids and make sure they are educated and taken care of, instead of not using contraceptive and having more kids with very poor lifestyles?

[authiodionitist]

Also, I will ask this:

What is bad about contraception if it keeps kids educated and healthy? Wouldn't it be much better, morally, to have 2-3 (or however many you can want or afford) kids and make sure they are educated and taken care of, instead of not using contraceptive and having more kids with very poor lifestyles?
Did I miss something? How does 2-3 kids mean good education and good health?

[buzuxi02]

I have about 2 pages to catch up on. But I went and we learned more today in Ecology, plus I talked to the teacher for about 20 minutes after school.

A lot of comments here were about, y'know, who are we to force them to use contraception? Most women in these developing countries WANT contraception but it is outrageously expensive, or they don't have information about contraception. They want it! Others are barred by the oppressive religious governments.

The whole red fire ant thing? Media hype. It was an interesting scientific theory that the media played upon. And with the other "people scare", well, that was the 80's. People in the 80's were paranoid about everything. :P

As an aside, the video we continued watching was gross. Apparently girls are shameful to have in India. It interviewed all these oppressed little girls who envied their brothers that were being educated, and playing instead of working. Their parents had to decide between her education or dowry. Obviously the latter took precedence. Boys are taken to hospitals when sick, and not girls. Only one of 8,000 aborted children in India is a male.

Really gross stuff.

Anywho, feel free to ask more questions. I am going to go read the past 2 pages.
Oppressive religious governments in Latin America and subsahara Africa? Thats a new one to me, perhaps oppresive, yes.

Contraception doesnt keep anyone educated and healthy it prevents pregnancy only. People are mistaking economic policies with family planning

[skoi]

I have about 2 pages to catch up on. But I went and we learned more today in Ecology, plus I talked to the teacher for about 20 minutes after school.

A lot of comments here were about, y'know, who are we to force them to use contraception? Most women in these developing countries WANT contraception but it is outrageously expensive, or they don't have information about contraception. They want it! Others are barred by the oppressive religious governments.

As an aside, the video we continued watching was gross. Apparently girls are shameful to have in India. It interviewed all these oppressed little girls who envied their brothers that were being educated, and playing instead of working. Their parents had to decide between her education or dowry. Obviously the latter took precedence. Boys are taken to hospitals when sick, and not girls. Only one of 8,000 aborted children in India is a male.

Really gross stuff.

Anywho, feel free to ask more questions. I am going to go read the past 2 pages.


You know your teacher has a socio-political view that informs her/his choice of materials and how they present these issues to their students. I did, when I taught, and so did the college students I taught in my classes. Ask the teacher what paradigm is informing their instruction. It's an eye opener. I was much more intolerant of other opinions when I was on the Left. I'm asking this specifically based on your assertion that "they want contraception". Do they? What source do you have? I'm curious, not accusing. I've heard both views, from radically different sources. You must always interrogate your sources. Everyone has an agenda, or else they wouldn't publish.

As for the India information- no surprise. Indian orphanages are filled with girls, especially dark-skinned girls, with a fewer number of boys, mainly dark skinned boys, or boys with physical or developmental delays. Our pediatricians are from India and when we were considering the files of some children from Pune, they told us there is probably almost as severe a "color prejudice" as there is gender prejudice in the country, resulting in darker skinned babies being gotten rid of, then not adopted in country, explaining the number of boys we found available for consideration to non Hindu or non Indian parents.

But not to sound like an old know it all (I'm going to have to confess pridefulness big time), I can't say it enough- everyone has an agenda. You have to interrogate everything, always. (And apologies for sounding too much like a postmodernist. It's almost like an addiction for me)

[Silentchapel]

What is bad about contraception if it keeps kids educated and healthy? If you put a condom on a child's head and keep giving it morning after pills on regular basis, Harvard studies have shown that its IQ increases for 67 points and mortality rate becomes so low that it becomes negative - that is, the child will spawn another child, equally smart and healthy.

On the serious note - the bad thing is that people need children to work NOW, not go to some fancy-shmancy school which deprives family of workforce. As for healthy, I fail to see how having many children affects their health...

[JustinHesychast]

Did I miss something? How does 2-3 kids mean good education and good health?

*** I have to detail everything.

2-3 kids, or less, have better chances for education in good health. Some families can only support that many, and use contraceptives afterwards.

[Silentchapel]

And who will work then?

[Nichole]

Ummmmm..............isn't that the parent's responsibility to work and support the children? In some cases, with lots of children, the mother stays home and home schools and only the father works to support them!

[Kristos]

Self control would be esteemed most highly - for me it's not so easy. I always try to do the "God honoring" thing, but if I'm weak, I think it's better to use contraception than not because that could compound the situation.

[Silentchapel]

We're talking about people who're living in extreme poverty. No "Oh no honey, we don't have enough food today" but "Oh no honey, we don't have food today." Yes, it is father's responsibility to care and support for his family, but in this sinful world, his wage may not be enough. Sure, it sucks that kids have to work (for example, helping in the field or what-have-you), but Lord never said: "Thine life shalt be easy, and thou shalt eat all the candy you can in a day. And when the flesh grows tired, magical faeries will take thee to thine bed, and will cover thee with precious heavenly petals." I'm not endorsing child labor, but we have to know that in this world, we don't always choose between good and evil, we often choose between evil and lesser evil. It is awful to make such Sophie's choices, but that is how it is. Showering condoms and pills upon the poor people will not solve their problems, solving poverty will.

[authiodionitist]

God,

To Thee, O God, belongs all glory, honor and worship....

2-3 kids, or less, have better chances for education in good health. Some families can only support that many, and use contraceptives afterwards.

In every country in every case.
Really.


Contraception is one of the intimate details of our lives. Are you open to God's will? Are you open to the possibilty of marriage?

[JustinHesychast]

Marriage? No. I'm a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. I can't get married.

Like I said before, as far as many scientific things go, I try and listen to the scientists as a whole (and not one or two of the media hyped whackjobs)

[authiodionitist]

Marriage? No. I'm a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. I can't get married.



So your answer to my question is No, I am not open to God's will.

[JustinHesychast]

This thread is supposed to be about contraception.

[authiodionitist]

This thread is supposed to be about contraception.
We answered it per Holy Orthodoxy. The discussion has shifted to Family Rights. All of these issues are personal so I think it's wise to know where the OP stands to see what he wants to get out of this. Do you want to understand Holy Orthodoxy or the Orthodox faithful on this forum to understand you?

[JustinHesychast]

I want to understand Orthodoxy. I'm trying, but I still see far more good in contraceptives than harm.

[authiodionitist]

I want to understand Orthodoxy. I'm trying, but I still see far more good in contraceptives than harm.
We never said once that non-abortive contraceptives are harmful. To go back to the early responses, this is an AYP question.

If you are open to marriage, then this may impact your life some day. If you will be a priest, then you may be guiding people on this matter some day.

If not, please learn what we believe.

In any case, Orthodoxy is experienced and lived.

[Orthosdoxa]

As far as I can tell, the Church isn't judging those who are outside the Church. She tells her followers what is good and right, and we try to meet that, and we tell other people if they ask, but our main point is having our OWN house in order, before we tell other people what to do. And if you're a married Orthodox Christian, you need to be open to children. There CAN be good reasons for it - a pregnancy would kill the wife, they already have 39 kids, whatever - it is to be worked out with your SF.

The main problem is the reason behind it: Do I want to use bc because I hate children? Because I'm selfish and don't want to have to care for anyone else? Because kids are a pain? Because I like to go out on weekends and they'll put a damper on my fun? Because I don't want to spend more money on a kid; I want a new car? Because I just love my own cute skinny little butt and don't want it to get saggy? Then contraception is a sin, because it is based on selfishness and pride. If it is based on GENUINE care and concern for the good of someone else, then it doesn't have to be a sin necessarily, but it is on a case by case basis - this is why we have SF's.

[nutroll]

A lot of comments here were about, y'know, who are we to force them to use contraception? Most women in these developing countries WANT contraception but it is outrageously expensive, or they don't have information about contraception. They want it! Others are barred by the oppressive religious governments.

I think this is a black and white presentation of an issue that has a lot of shades of grey. There are people who are actively working to make contraception available to people in developing countries, especially where there are AIDS epidemics. So insofar as you think this is a good thing, you will get your wish. And it will be free and readily available.

Many times people are not comfortable using contraceptives because they are foreign to them. Sometimes husbands don't want to use them and insist on not using it with their wives. I don't know who these oppressive religious governments are, but I will say that there is some religious objection to it. Many people complain about the Catholic Church opposing contraceptives in the Aid Programs they fund. I don't necessarily agree with the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception, but if they are working to help people in those countries, then God bless them for the work that they are doing, and I think we can excuse them for passing on the teachings of their Church.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't have a problem with giving contraceptives to people who want them, I have a problem with us deciding for them that they need to start using it. We (Americans) live in a country where our poor are richer than the rich in some other countries. We educate and vaccinate all of our children. None of our children have to struggle like children in other countries, and yet this comfort can lead us astray. We don't live with the expectation that our death could come at any time and so we must be prepared. We don't know what true poverty is, and so we turn a blind eye to the poor. In short, we are well fed, and well educated enough to lose sight of our salvation. While I don't want people to needlessly starve or be uneducated in other countries, and while I think we should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and imprisoned, it is a mistake to think that condoms will do that. We need to see the Lord in them, and care for them as we would for Him, but we also need to teach them the love of God and their fellow man, and not teach them that children are a problem waiting to happen and that they should be avoided at all costs.

And I really don't see how this has anything to do with the Orthodox Church. Since we don't oppose the use of contraception across the board, I think that if it is necessary for Orthodox Christians in those countries to limit the number of children they have, they would be allowed to do so by using contraceptives. As a Church, we are not going to go on a publicity tour to raise awareness of a Population Explosion problem.

[JustinHesychast]

We never said once that non-abortive contraceptives are harmful. To go back to the early responses, this is an AYP question.

If you are open to marriage, then this may impact your life some day. If you will be a priest, then you may be guiding people on this matter some day.

If not, please learn what we believe.

In any case, Orthodoxy is experienced and lived.

What is AYP? o.O;;

I can't be open to marriage. Gays can't marry in Orthodoxy, last I knew.

I can't really experience or live Orthodoxy all that well under a closeminded bigot oppressive mother. But I try. Sometimes. I fail a lot.

[authiodionitist]

What is AYP? o.O;;

Ask Your Priest. I've never used that acronym before, but this forum has a tendency to use it.


I can't be open to marriage. Gays can't marry in Orthodoxy, last I knew.

Anybody can get married, unless for some reason they hate the opposite sex. In which case some serious pastoring is needed.

Marriage is a Sacrament. Not a Sex Bond.


I can't really experience or live Orthodoxy all that well under a closeminded bigot oppressive mother. But I try. Sometimes. I fail a lot.
Cut yourself some slack. Your mom, too.

Lord have mercy does not mean you're no good - it means you're good enough to ask!

[JustinHesychast]

Ask Your Priest. I've never used that acronym before, but this forum has a tendency to use it.



Anybody can get married, unless for some reason they hate the opposite sex. In which case some serious pastoring is needed.

Marriage is a Sacrament. Not a Sex Bond.


Cut yourself some slack. Your mom, too.

Lord have mercy does not mean you're no good - it means you're good enough to ask!

Ah, thanks for the new acronym! *stores in brain*

So are you saying gays can marry? I'm hoping I read that wrong. :P Because I am gay. I cannot marry.

You don't know my mom. :P She vehemently opposes Orthodoxy, and has for the past year.

*looks around*

So much for the contraception topic. :P

[Protoevangel]

What is AYP? o.O;;
Ask Your Priest.

I can't be open to marriage. Gays can't marry in Orthodoxy, last I knew.
1. Love does not equate to sexual interest. Love can surpass a woody.
2. You are young. Don't pigeonhole yourself just yet.
3. I am broken too. Christ heals.

I can't really experience or live Orthodoxy all that well under a closeminded bigot oppressive mother. But I try. Sometimes. I fail a lot.
As do we all. Do the best you can with what you have.

EDIT: Apparently I'm a little slow at the posting thing...

[authiodionitist]

So are you saying gays can marry? I'm hoping I read that wrong. :P Because I am gay. I cannot marry.


Marriage or monasticism! Being a zygote is an option, but not very widely recommended.


You don't know my mom. :P She vehemently opposes Orthodoxy, and has for the past year.

*looks around*

Sounds like you have some fun with it :cool:

[JustinHesychast]

Marriage to a male or female? Cause I am confused. :P

Proto, it's not about a woody and it's been 3 years plus going back to childhood. Thanks for the kind words. :)

Hrm. *tries to steer back to the topic of contraception*

[authiodionitist]

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

[AJB4]

The EOC allows divorce, why not contraception?

[authiodionitist]

The EOC allows divorce, why not contraception?
Both are allowed by economy. It is not a "we allow this and that" sort of thing. That's a more Western view of law. Our view of law is pastoral. So it depends on who you are and what's going on in your life.

[nutroll]

It seems to me that the Orthodox view of contraception is that it is morally neutral. The mistake lies in claiming that it is inherently good, which seems to be Justin's opinion, or that it is inherently bad, which seems to be the RC position. It is something that can be helpful for a married couple if there is excessive danger in getting pregnant, or if a family simply can't care for any more children. But it can also be harmful if it lulls people into thinking that a child is an unwanted side effect of sex, or that promiscuous sex can be made "safe," and therefore acceptable.

[repentant]

Unless there is some darn good reasoning, if this is the Church position, I do not believe it. What about people in a loving marriage where having children is physically impossible even though they want kids? And isn't sex God's gift for not only procreation but to connect to one's spouse, and a part of the whole one flesh thing?

You still can try. There are many stories of people who supposedly could not have children-but did. There is an example in my family as a matter of fact..

Marriage itself makes you one flesh, not sex.

I'll have to agree with Justin on this one. While sex's primary purpose is procreation, it does not mean it isn't a gift from God that allows spouses to express love for each other.
However, sterility is an exception, not a rule. What about people who can have kids but don't want to because of their busy schedule?

Can you show me one instance where it says the purpose of sex it to show love for one another?

I leave that question to Justin as well..

[repentant]

Uhh, this wasn't my understanding of the Orthodox view.

Of course, you have probably been told the new and liberal so called Orthodox view..

[repentant]

umm... mine either. For what it is worth, I pulled this of the GOARCH web site:

Unfortunately GOARCH has fallen into a liberal view on some things. If one takes into consideration all the fast days (we are to obstain from sex on these days as well) the spacing of children is no problem. Lent, Nativity, Dormition, etc. Wed and Fri. Also Sat to prepare for Communion, and Sunday because you took Communion. That is alot of abstaining. Of course if you do not pay attention to this, have sex like rabbits, then alot of kids will come. Also contraception takes God out of the picture. Listen up people. God will NEVER give you more than you can handle, IF you follow what you are supposed to do. Relying on man made things like contraception instead of God, takes your reliance AND faith away from God, and puts it on man.

[repentant]

Uh, I lust after my wife (especially when I haven't seen her in 3 weeks!), and my conscience gives me zero trouble on this one...

Well that is unfortunate..

[repentant]

Please cite your "official teaching."



Try reading the early Church father's, not the change implimented by the modern Church...

The practice of artificial birth control—by which is meant "the pill," condoms, or any other kind of device—is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.

Likewise, the Romanian and Russian Churches, to name just two others among many—have more than once, in former times, spoken out against this practice. It is only in recent times, only in the generation since World War II, that some local Churches (the Greek Archdiocese in this country, for example) have begun to teach that it "might" be all right to practice birth control in certain circumstances, as long as this is discussed with the priest beforehand and has his agreement. -Hieromonk Ambrose (Fr. Alexey Young)



Also read my last few posts for the reasons..

[AJB4]

What's wrong with lusting after your wife? I mean, it's not like you can commit adultery by looking at her, because you're married! :D

[repentant]

Anybody can get married, unless for some reason they hate the opposite sex. In which case some serious pastoring is needed.

Marriage is a Sacrament. Not a Sex Bond


He makes a statement that gays can't get married in the EOC, and you reply with this??? Anybody can get married? Are you kidding me? Is this what they teach nowadays..????

[Breaking Babylon]

The way I've always seen it is that if you're married you're not called to celibacy, or having no sexual desire towards your wife at all. If you're married, you're not a monk. We're males, it's natural to be sexually attracted to your wife...

I remember reading in Mountain of Silence how the monks laughed at Dr. Markides when he thought they had no sexual desires at all. It's not unfortunate that anyone desires sex, it's completely natural. This is something I plan on talking to my priest about tomorrow. It's a confusing topic.

[repentant]

What's wrong with lusting after your wife? I mean, it's not like you can commit adultery by looking at her, because you're married! :D

It's about passions, that's all. Lust in marriage is not the same as not married lust. Contraception is a lust within marriage issue. You have sex, with no intention of having children, to satisfy your own passion. Now what confuses people is St. Paul saying to get married to avoid fornication. But this is different. Paul here is teaching that not all can be celibent, so to avoid fornication..get married. But within marriage, kids are expected. In the early days, it was looked down upon not to have children, and people were told to abstain from one another because of this. In some instances, divorce was granted for barrenness, so that the man (or woman) can have children. Of course all instances of not having children back then, was the womans fault..

The issue on this board is that people read alot...but they read to many modern views. Read the views of the ancients, and it explains alot about the Church, and what SHOULD be done. Contraception is an issue that completely falls in this category. Read the statement above by Hieromonk Ambrose..

[repentant]

The way I've always seen it is that if you're married you're not called to celibacy, or having no sexual desire towards your wife at all. If you're married, you're not a monk. We're males, it's natural to be sexually attracted to your wife...

I remember reading in Mountain of Silence how the monks laughed at Dr. Markides when he thought they had no sexual desires at all. It's not unfortunate that anyone desires sex, it's completely natural. This is something I plan on talking to my priest about tomorrow. It's a confusing topic.

When kind of got OT here but desire, urge, etc. is one thing, satisfying it is another...

Many, many, many Holy men and Saints felt urges to fornicate..it is not uncommon for monks to have these darts thrown at them by the devil...

[paleodoxy]

repentant,

What's the difference between non-abortifacient, artificial contraception and natural family planning?

Sounds like you're taking the logically twisted view of the Roman Catholic church. In nothing I have read has it been suggested that this is what Orthodoxy teaches.

And nothing you've quoted sounds remotely universally authoritative.

[skoi]

I have a question:
So if one person in a marriage has been surgically sterilized by choice made before conversion, they shouldn't have sex because there is basically no chance of procreation?

I know there are fundamentalist Protestant doctors who have ministries that specialize in reversal of vasectomies and tubal ligations, is that what you're supposed to do?

(I'm thinking this is an AYP question, but just seeking opinions)

[Kristos]

[quote=paleodoxy;39234409]repentant,

What's the difference between non-abortifacient, artificial contraception and natural family planning?
quote]

Exactly. If you following the hardline, then I say even "natural" family planning would violate the notion that sex within marriage is for procreation. In fact, the only time you should have sex would be during peak fertility - otherwise, it's just a rationalization of reality.

[Kristos]

He makes a statement that gays can't get married in the EOC, and you reply with this??? Anybody can get married? Are you kidding me? Is this what they teach nowadays..????
I don't see why a person with same sex attraction could not be married in an EOC. According to some definitions of sex within marriage I've seen here - this might be a more pious marriage than most.

[Protoevangel]

Anybody can get married, unless for some reason they hate the opposite sex. In which case some serious pastoring is needed.

Marriage is a Sacrament. Not a Sex BondHe makes a statement that gays can't get married in the EOC, and you reply with this??? Anybody can get married? Are you kidding me? Is this what they teach nowadays..????
I don't think you read his whole post.

Just because Joe Schmoe is sexually aroused by guys, that does automatically not mean he is wholly incapable of loving and marrying a woman.

It sounds to me like you are falling for the "it's who they are" fallacy, instead of understanding the truth, that is is a passion, a sin that they struggle against or embrace as any other passion or sin.

[authiodionitist]

For more info about homosexuality and Christianity, read Christian Faith and Same-Sex Attraction: Eastern Orthodox Reflections by Father Thomas Hopko for starters.

[authiodionitist]

I have a question:
So if one person in a marriage has been surgically sterilized by choice made before conversion, they shouldn't have sex because there is basically no chance of procreation?

I know there are fundamentalist Protestant doctors who have ministries that specialize in reversal of vasectomies and tubal ligations, is that what you're supposed to do?

(I'm thinking this is an AYP question, but just seeking opinions)

Oh me oh my. No no no no no.

Sex is NOT PRIMARILY for procreation. It is an expression of the "unity of love" and "communion of marriage" prayed for during the Marriage service. Procreation is a side-product, and a good one!

Read Meyendorff's Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. It seats all this discussion in a prayerful, not polemical, perspective.

[authiodionitist]

Try reading the early Church father's, not the change implimented by the modern Church...

The practice of artificial birth control—by which is meant "the pill," condoms, or any other kind of device—is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.

Likewise, the Romanian and Russian Churches, to name just two others among many—have more than once, in former times, spoken out against this practice. It is only in recent times, only in the generation since World War II, that some local Churches (the Greek Archdiocese in this country, for example) have begun to teach that it "might" be all right to practice birth control in certain circumstances, as long as this is discussed with the priest beforehand and has his agreement. -Hieromonk Ambrose (Fr. Alexey Young)



Also read my last few posts for the reasons..
Ancient does not mean correct.

Non-abortificent contraceptives are not evil. It is in how they are used.

Natural Family Planning is also a non-abortificient contraceptive.

[authiodionitist]

Of course, you have probably been told the new and liberal so called Orthodox view..

Repent.

[authiodionitist]

Unfortunately GOARCH has fallen into a liberal view on some things. If one takes into consideration all the fast days (we are to obstain from sex on these days as well) the spacing of children is no problem. Lent, Nativity, Dormition, etc. Wed and Fri. Also Sat to prepare for Communion, and Sunday because you took Communion. That is alot of abstaining. Of course if you do not pay attention to this, have sex like rabbits, then alot of kids will come. Also contraception takes God out of the picture. Listen up people. God will NEVER give you more than you can handle, IF you follow what you are supposed to do. Relying on man made things like contraception instead of God, takes your reliance AND faith away from God, and puts it on man.
Again, repent.

[authiodionitist]

It's about passions, that's all. Lust in marriage is not the same as not married lust. Contraception is a lust within marriage issue. You have sex, with no intention of having children, to satisfy your own passion. Now what confuses people is St. Paul saying to get married to avoid fornication. But this is different. Paul here is teaching that not all can be celibent, so to avoid fornication..get married. But within marriage, kids are expected. In the early days, it was looked down upon not to have children, and people were told to abstain from one another because of this. In some instances, divorce was granted for barrenness, so that the man (or woman) can have children. Of course all instances of not having children back then, was the womans fault..

The issue on this board is that people read alot...but they read to many modern views. Read the views of the ancients, and it explains alot about the Church, and what SHOULD be done. Contraception is an issue that completely falls in this category. Read the statement above by Hieromonk Ambrose..
Repent.

[authiodionitist]

Repentent:

CITE your sources. Quotes without citations are not citations!

[skoi]

Oh me oh my. No no no no no.

Sex is NOT PRIMARILY for procreation. It is an expression of the "unity of love" and "communion of marriage" prayed for during the Marriage service. Procreation is a side-product, and a good one!

Read Meyendorff's Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. It seats all this discussion in a prayerful, not polemical, perspective.

Okay- that's what I've been told. There seems to be a difference in opinion on whether sex is primarily procreative or an expression of unity of love. We always viewed it as an expression of unity, but then again, husband comes from a totally secular background, and I was raised Protestant so...

[authiodionitist]

Okay- that's what I've been told. There seems to be a difference in opinion on whether sex is primarily procreative or an expression of unity of love. We always viewed it as an expression of unity, but then again, husband comes from a totally secular background, and I was raised Protestant so...
Most of the proponents of the "sex-is-for-procreation" view are Roman Catholics and Mormons.

[Dorothea]

...The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp

[paleodoxy]

That's what I'm talkin' about, Dorothea... :cool:

[paleodoxy]

Okay- that's what I've been told. There seems to be a difference in opinion on whether sex is primarily procreative or an expression of unity of love.

I would say it's primarily both.

Now, this doesn't mean we are obligated to be aiming for children every single time we have sex any more than it means we should never have sex when we may not be particularly "in the mood".

[skoi]

Paleodoxy-

That's what I thought. It was the view we've had for a long time. I just had never seen the procreation only view expressed before here, so I was wondering how widely it was held.

I did see something about this lately on the Catholic forum here, but some of them ended up bashing Orthodoxy (comments like- well, leaving it up to the priest's discretion is Orthodox, that's why people become Orthodox, so they can use birth control and get divorced). I stopped reading at that point, because I'm definitely not educated enough on Church to engage in Apologetics/explanations yet.

[paleodoxy]

Thanks for clarifying, skoi. Good stuff.

Yeah, that's why people become Orthodox. As opposed to communing with boy loving priests and getting caught up in worldwide sex scandals. ;)

[repentant]

repentant,

What's the difference between non-abortifacient, artificial contraception and natural family planning?

Sounds like you're taking the logically twisted view of the Roman Catholic church. In nothing I have read has it been suggested that this is what Orthodoxy teaches.

And nothing you've quoted sounds remotely universally authoritative.

Pale, I am really getting tired of you, a catechumen, coming at me. I have read more books, than you can imagine. I told you to read the FATHERS and the ANCIENTS, and not the modern voew of liberal Orthodox "theologians". There are writings by St. John Chrysostom that have NEVER been translated out of the oriiginal Greek it was written in. Makes you wonder why the Church of Greece forbade contraception doesn't it..? The things I said before, such as using contraceptives and taking faith away from God, and reasons why contras. have always, unitl recently by the liberal western world Orthodox, have been forbidden. If you use contraceptives, you have no faith in God, and that He will take care of you, and not over burden you with 25 children-if you canot hadle it. Do you understand? I am tired of your assault on me, and you're not even Orthodox. Read the ancients, I can bet you never have..

[repentant]

I have a question:
So if one person in a marriage has been surgically sterilized by choice made before conversion, they shouldn't have sex because there is basically no chance of procreation?

I know there are fundamentalist Protestant doctors who have ministries that specialize in reversal of vasectomies and tubal ligations, is that what you're supposed to do?

(I'm thinking this is an AYP question, but just seeking opinions)


I have a question..why do people have to ask questions that pertain to .01% of the Orthodox world?

[repentant]

I don't see why a person with same sex attraction could not be married in an EOC. According to some definitions of sex within marriage I've seen here - this might be a more pious marriage than most.


So same sex marriage is ok with TAW now? I think I need to leave..

[repentant]

Ancient does not mean correct.

Non-abortificent contraceptives are not evil. It is in how they are used.

Natural Family Planning is also a non-abortificient contraceptive.

Something a protestant would say...what the Church practiced for 1900 years is what makes it correct. Do you not realize that it was only in the 20th century when contras were "allowed"?

[repentant]

Repent.

Again, repent.

From what?


What about my second (and my forst for that matter) do I need to repent from? Is saying relying on man made things instead of God is wrong, a sin now?

[repentant]

Repentent:

CITE your sources. Quotes without citations are not citations!

everything I quoted I cited...

[repentant]

Most of the proponents of the "sex-is-for-procreation" view are Roman Catholics and Mormons.


Really? Go tell Geronda Ephraim, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Paisios, etc that they are Roman Catholics and Mormons.

[repentant]

...The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp

This has alreadey been quoted, and I have already said that GOARCH UNFORTUNATLEY TAKES A NEW LIBERAL VIEW OF CONTRAS...

[repentant]

Paleodoxy-

That's what I thought. It was the view we've had for a long time. I just had never seen the procreation only view expressed before here, so I was wondering how widely it was held.

I did see something about this lately on the Catholic forum here, but some of them ended up bashing Orthodoxy (comments like- well, leaving it up to the priest's discretion is Orthodox, that's why people become Orthodox, so they can use birth control and get divorced). I stopped reading at that point, because I'm definitely not educated enough on Church to engage in Apologetics/explanations yet.




Why do people listen and take as Gospel what someone who is not even Orthodox says..?

[repentant]

Someone answer this question...

Is the fact that we fast more than half the year with Lent, Nativity, Dormition, Apostles, Wed. Fri. Sat and Sun (from sex) and the reliance that God will give you what you need not enough of a contraception for you?

Jesus told us not even to worry about what we will eat and drink, because He would provide it for us. Do you think He will not take care of you and not over burden you with more children than you can handle?

If someone can actually say that they do not have enough faith in God to rely on Him and His Will on how many children they will have, than you can go ahead and use contraception...

[repentant]

Just like I thought....

[Silentchapel]

I also suppose they were married and knew how to deal with marriage problems first hand? :)

[repentant]

I also suppose they were married and knew how to deal with marriage problems first hand? :)

Who the Elders above? I can't believe an Orthodox person would even say that. No they were not married, BUT they know what the Church teaches, and our Spiritually in tune to it more than anyone of us are..

Two of them (Elder's Joseph and Paisios) have reposed, and are considered Saints by all of Mt. Athos, and pretty much the Orthodox World in general. And the other, Elder Ephraim is a living Saint, and spiritual son of Elder Joseph. His monastery is the second most visited place in the state of Arizona.

I can't believe the ignorant, almost protestant repsonses on this thread. I am contemplating leaving this site. One person says "ancient doesn't mean right" pure protestant, and now you say what you say here...unbelievable...

And anyone going to take a stab at answering my questions?

[repentant]

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/oct/04100710.html

Russian Orthodox Church Condemns Contraception, Abortion, Promiscuity as Reasons for Population Crisis

MOSCOW, October 7, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Assembly of Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church condemned abortion, contraception, pre and extra-marital sexual activity as reasons for the collapse of the Russian population Wednesday.

Church leaders said the pervasive use of so-called "family planning" by women -- contraception, sterilization, and abortion -- is "a pernicious practice that leads not only to the reduction of the country's population but also to its moral degradation," according to an Information Telegraph Agency of Russia report.

Orthodox officials also met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the issues. When asked about Russia's most severe population decline, as experienced in the Trans-Baikal region, Putin said, "Siberia and the Far East are experiencing depopulation, and although this process has slightly slowed down lately, this is a very acute problem." Putin maintained that the population problem is chiefly an economic one.

While admitting that economics plays a factor, Church delegates said "the main cause" of the demographic crisis "is in the field of morals."


Therefore, it would be wrong to use contraceptives to avoid the birth of any child. “Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXIV. Romans 13:11.)

As Fr. Alexander Men once pointed out, "God has given us two books, the Bible and Nature," for in the cycles of Nature we find reflected the Church’s cycles of fasting and feasting and the understanding that our desires and appetites do not have primacy in our lives. There is much in Orthodox behavior that is inconvenient. Indeed, as Orthodox Christians, we are called upon to fast routinely, and many “fast from the flesh” as an appropriate preparation for receiving the Eucharist. The advances in understanding how to use natural family planning, with its high degree of reliability and its reliance on cycles of fertility, makes that technique a particularly acceptable approach for practicing Orthodox Christians who are concerned about unexpected pregnancies, since it requires nothing more than discipline and attentiveness and fasting--virtues in themselves.

[repentant]

More..

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).

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 childr