www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Natural Family Planning or Contraception?

Sharon,

I apologize if my post inferred that some couples were in some way disrespectful. I think we could learn and do so much more in terms of ministering to those who have suffered miscarriages. Another couple in the parish suffered a miscarriage, and Fr asked by wife and I to speak with them. We told them to name the child and commend the child into God's care. I'm only refering to my experience, and did not mean to imply a generalization.

As to the pathologist, yes he was being technical, but he came across desensitized to our grief.

Theologically sound or not, I too believe as you do that heaven is filled with our little ones interceding on our behalf. How could it be otherwise if as Christian parents we desired baptism for our children.

Sharon,

in my own case, my wife knows I cannot do two things at the same time. So every night she gives me a stick of gum. But eight times she did run out of it.

Father Deacon,

No apology needed at all - sorry if I seemed ..(this is getting silly.... I think we are on the same page.)

I am SOOOOOO glad that you and your wife are there for bereaved parents. You are so right that we could do more - sometimes just being there with a common loss is such a help. Grieving is hard enough when other people think of it as "a death." Miscarriage doesn't seem to rate in society's eyes. It's a lonely grieving - but astoundingly common.

Sorry your pathologist seemed insensitive.

'sfunny, I never named my two, but I don't feel any loss for it. I knew they were but I never knew what their names were. The Lord knows who they are, and that's what matters.

Anyway at our house, coming up with names is a grueling experience. I kid you not, with our second kid, after going through all the baby books, we even ended up reserving a book called "German names for German DOgs" from the library It didn't help, but we discovered some cool breeds we'd never seen before! (Ever see a Leonberger?) Maximilian Seraphim was finally named with only a couple weeks to go before his actual debut. Mebbe it runs in the family. My older brother was called "Little Nameless" by the nurses for the first three days of his life, and as previously mentioned elsewhere, after dithering for days, my father (a railroad enthusiast) thought of one of his favorite railroading towns in Pennsylvania, and I had a name - blessedly NOT the second choice, which would have been Hepzibah.


Chug-a-chug-a-woo!-woo!

That Town In Pennsylvania

"Not tonight dear, I have a toothache."

Duckign & running.....


Sharon

This thread originated on another thread, one on homosexuality, when I mentioned that if one buys the logic of contraception and agrees that the procreative aspect of sexuality is not intrinsic to it -and to marriage- one has no logical grounds for opposing homosexuality. I was thoroughly thrashed for raising such an idea, mostly by Orthodox posters who were offended by the idea that their Churches were somehow soft on homosexuality [not the intent of my posts].
Well, I just read the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Massachussetts Supreme Court on the ruling favoring homosexual marriage, and guess what? Her logic was that the essence of marriage is not procreation but companionship; thus it is unjust to deny this to homosexuals.
And so, the Children of Darkness are quicker than the Children of Light to recognize the implications of their reasoning...

Daniel the Iconophile,

this is your day, the Triumph of Orthodoxy!

Actually what is missing in the Massachussett opinion is the Orthodox/Catholic supposition that the companionship was instituted by God to be a companionship consisting of a man and a women. As a statement of faith, we know from Sacred Scripture, that marriage is companionship of two persons, male and female, which relects the Divine Image. The fruit of that companionship will ordinarily lead to bring forth children. So I would surmise that companionship precedes procreation.

Now contraceptive sex has been with us for many centuries, L-T emphasized that the Fathers' condemned the practice. So, I don't understand the connection between contraceptive heterosexual activity and homosexual marriage. If the former was a problem in the patristic age (why else would the Fathers' address the subject),why did it not lead to the latter?