Sex, Contraception, NFP, Humanae Vitae, & Natural Law with Dr. David Bradshaw
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- As an addendum to our video on contraception in Christian historical thought, we invite on Orthodox philosopher Dr. David Bradshaw to discuss his thoughts expressed in an upcoming publication subheaded "What does it mean to be Contrary to Nature?" and another article he wrote on Christian Sexual Ethics at Ancient Faith.
We hope to discuss Natural Law, its influence on Humanae Vitae, and its place in Orthodox sexual ethics.
Affiliate link for FreeFiltering: freefiltering.org/#UbiPetrus
Our SubscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/ubi-petrus
Dr. Bradshaw's article series on Christian Sexual Ethics:
blogs.ancientfaith.com/every-... 
Развлечения
David Bradshaw is a gift!! ☦
Always a pleasure, Doctor Bradshaw 🙏🙏
Glory to God, also congratulations in advance for 4000 subscribers.
I was at that conference. It was a great time.
Very interesting.
good
How do we as Orthodox Christians dissent from St. Augustine when we find the same ideas in Chrysostom and in so many other holy fathers? Surely, we can dissent from a father's opinion when it goes against the consensus but, Stoic or not, the consensus patrum is what it is. I understand, perhaps, pastoral condescension to weakness, but is it a good idea to not also hold the ideal and explain that that is our goal?
Chrysostom and Augustine don't agree, though.
Case in point, St. Augustine considers sex lacking the intent of conception to be a venial sin (he also labels as venial sin abortion in the first 40-80 days after conception so this isn't a light category) while St. Chrysostom never mentions anything like it but instead states sex within marriage is a healthy outlet for avoiding fornication (i.e. it's not just for conception).
In the end, the Church decides synodically and there's no synodical decision on it save for a small local synod in 6th century Gaul that no one else ratified.
Contrast that to decisions on other sexual issues and the difference could not be starker.
@@ubipetrus3882 Thanks for this reply, Ubi. I've seen the Chrysostom quote you're referencing. But what about other places where he condemns medicines of sterility, etc.? What about the canons of St. John the Faster? These were incorporated not simply into Byzantine penitentials but into all the Slavic ones, too. They explicitly condemn contraception. The Slavs even called it "dushegube"-- lit. the murder of the soul.
Could the answer be somewhere in the middle? St. Maximus the Confessor's Questions and Doubts number 183 has a hierarchy to sexual behavior: He says that the most basic form of self control in this regard is one man who limits himself to intercourse with his wife. The second, better form, is one "who uses the freedom of the law but not continuously," i.e. sometimes refraining, say, during Holy Week, or the nights before receiving communion. The third, still better, is the one who only engages in the act for procreation. The fourth, still better, is the one "who after accomplishing the birth of one or two children" refrains altogether thereafter. The fifth and best, he says, "superior to all of the others," is the virgin who refrains from marriage altogether.
This doesn't directly address contraception, of course, but neither does the Chrysostom quote about marriage having legitimate non-procreative purposes. Can we glean insight into the contraception thing from this schema of St. Maximus? I think so. The highest way is virginity. The next highest is sex only for procreation. Sounds a bit Augustinian but this is the great Maximus. Beyond that is down the ladder still, but with restraint, and so on. Is it perhaps the case that contraception is a sinful, but perhaps for serious reasons not mortally so? I don't know, but it seems to me that Augustine isn't the only one saying what he said.
@@Isaakios82 St. Maximus read St. Augustine and was a big fan, afaik, so that needn't be surprising.
Which canons of the Faster specifically are you referencing?
Also, see the pinned comment for a quotation from St. Maximus on sex without the aim of conception.
About the "medicines of sterility" quotation from St. Chrysostom, Dr. Bradshaw comments on that in, iirc, the full version on Subscribestar/Patreon.
Hey Ubi, is there an email with which I can talk about my struggles with you? Thanks for all your awesome content!
You can send them in over SubscribeStar here: www.subscribestar.com/ubi-petrus
Even then, it depends on which struggles you mean. If it is in regard to theology, history, and linguistics, sure but if this starts to delve into psychological issues, covid vaccines, whether or not we're in the end times, etc., you need to talk to your spiritual father.
@@ubipetrus3882 Haha sorry I should've been more clear. It's theology related, thanks so much!
Can you link to Dr Bradshaw’s work? The link in description does not work anymore.
At what minute is NFP is addressed?
Per the treadmill, the legs are far more multipurpose than the sexual organs. This is where the objection would be looked for, about whether the range of purposes can vary between organs. Now I agree that they cannot show from the body that the procreative function is non-overridable by any other acceptable function. Rather I think the reason for union can outweigh the reason against avoiding procreative function. There is some weight to the reason for procreation for those acts or that kind of relationship. But it is outweighable, not without some impurity. However the reason for preserving a dyad and anatomical match of male and female has a much heavier weight to it. I think it relates more to gender and the formation of the person than with anatomy.
This was very helpful. You really see how the western tendency to make everything into laws can be reduced to absurdity.
Something I’ve noticed, and I may be wrong and I don’t mean to be disrespectful, is that people like St. Augustine who struggled with fornication for a long time, and on the other side monastics who gave up sex altogether, both usually have the most intense rigourism about what is acceptable and not.
There is definitely that - I think that goes without saying - but there is also the influence of Stoicism. Now, whether these individuals were drawn to Stoicism due to their mindset or whether Stoicism formed them is another issue but for me, the main argument is that within a sea of sexual sins that were frequently commented on in council, contraception was commented on only once in a small Frankish council in the 6th century that was never picked up by anyone while all of the other sexual sins were repeatedly condemned.
I just read part three of his articles and something doesn't make sense to me.
He says virginity is something that can be used for good or bad, but isn't that like saying virtue can be used for good or bad? I agree it can make one proud, but it takes work to remain pure.
Also, in his article he says being a monk isn't "better" than being married, bit that's exactly what scripture says.
We would disagree on that front it's also the position of John Chrysostom, athanasius and Basil
@@shiningdiamond5046 Which part is their position?
I watched your first video, but I failed to come to a conclusion, or at least I am not sure of it. At the end of the day, as long as nothing kills the sperm, everything is fine? Does this mean that methods such as pulling out are "fine" too? I failed to understand the Church's position on this except the overly stoic positions of the western Fathers.
The EP, Moscow, and Antioch have all ruled on favor of limited uses of non-abortificient contraception with the direction of a confessor and for serious health risks (for example, there are only so many c-sections the average uterus can take before it just bursts). Other synods have t cared to rule. A few have ruled against it.
@@icxcnika2037 have you read Song of Solomon? That’s literally him talking about sexual relations with his lady as a poem
@Ivan Vlatkovic Why?
Don't be intentionally naive, economia doesn't mean things aren't wrong. Most often simply means in view of human weakness a condescension is made. That modern synods have made such concessions also does not mean that they represent the totality of tradition by any means. They could be wrong as many modern synods have been at time. This video is an absolute redefining of Orthodox ethos on sexual morality by directly creating a false dichotomy between what amounts to modern Orthodox ethos and traditionalist Roman Catholic papal documents.
☦️St. Avgustinus as all fathers are infallible & he never contradicted St. Christosom, who never said that sex in marriage is not for the purpose of conception alone, only that *in additon* it is healthy for marriage, meaning that if it isn't *natually* resulting in conception, it is no sin. It is not a western idea, only the articulation of it is, so Bradshaw doesn't know what he's talking about.
Two pornstars married. They have sex every day and because they use to be pornstars, they make sure that they derive the most pleasure from sex. Both of them use contraception and have no interest in having kids until they reach 30.
Is this marriage blessed?
At the age of 30 they stop using contraception and they end up having 2 kids. They continue to have sex every day without contraception.
Is this marriage now blessed?
In both cases pleasure is the motor for having sex.
You’re going to have to talk to their spiritual father. Maybe they have issues in which their situation is best being served with mercy. They must be pretty messed up from porn, there’s gonna be a lot of problems already.