This morning’s Wall Street Journal looks at the evangelical Protestant attitude toward contraception. Mostly, the piece notes, they love it: 88 percent according to a Harris poll support birth control.
Still, the author, a professor at Wheaton College, notes the very recent history of such views among Protestants and acknowledges an evangelical minority holding to the older vantage point on contraception, citing Sam and Bethany Torode’s Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception and Albert Mohler’s qualified rejection of the contraceptive culture.
As it happens, however, the Torodes are not Protestants anymore (having converted to Orthodoxy), nor are they opposed to all forms of contraception anymore. This may make the case stronger that opposition to contraception is alien to contemporary American evangelical thought. The WSJ concludes that the debate is far from over:
As strong as evangelical opinion may be on all sides of the contraception debate, it is not fixed. The Torodes, who were newlyweds when they wrote their apologia for contraception-free, marital sex, now have three children. Mrs. Torode offers an update on the couple’s Web site: "While we still believe in the importance of family, we’re more mellow about encouraging others to have more children." As Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, a professor of biblical studies at Eastern College, writes: "To suggest that birth control is evil or perverse because it undermines God’s sovereignty is to underestimate God’s sovereignty and reject our responsibility to serve him wisely."
Still, many evangelicals portray abstinence not as obedience but as an investment in future great sex. For those who marry, the "my body, my choice" attitude contributes to a contraception culture that places fulfillment of personal desires ahead of God’s desires.
Some evangelicals charge that the Pill has contributed to the moral breakdown of society; perhaps, but evangelicals’ embrace of the contraception culture has not helped. It may have made Christianity sexier to potential adherents but diminished a public understanding of marriage in the process. For evangelicals, this may be a bitter pill to swallow.
Among Evangelicals, is there a similarly high acceptance of no-fault divorce?
Please note that in the poll results, acceptance of birth control among Catholics was even higher, at 90%.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=608
As Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, a professor of biblical studies at Eastern College, writes: “To suggest that birth control is evil or perverse because it undermines God’s sovereignty is to underestimate God’s sovereignty and reject our responsibility to serve him wisely.”
What if we changed the words “birth control” in the above quote to “abortion” or some other sin. The issue is not whether God could cause conception from sexual intercourse engaged in by a couple using contraception, He can, or whether we are to act responsibly, we are. The question is whether we obey or disobey God’s will when we contracept (i.e., do we sin). Nineteen centuries of Christian theologians, including the some of the most revered, from all traditions answered that question uniformly by saying contraception is a sin. Seventy-five years of some Christians have said no we don’t. They have done so in an age in which many observers would say that many Christians have sold out to the secular culture on a number of other issues.
As I have posted before, my wife and I used contraception for several years. We now have three children, the youngest of whom has problems that may be caused by either chromosomal or genetic abnormalities (tests are still being performed, though the most common abnormalities have been eliminated). We both agree (and my wife has been more adamant about this than me, bucking me up in my weaker moments) that we will not use contraception again but will instead trust God with our fertility. Otherwise, we believe we lie when we say we have put our full trust in Him. Our youngest is a beautiful, engaging, delightful blessing. If it would have been a sin to abort her because of her problems, it would have been a sin to have denied her existence by contraception. As it is, she has the hope to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Who are we to have taken that hope from her by denying her existence? Contraception is playing God and saying to Him we know better than He what would be a blessing. That is a sin.
What worries me is the fixation on rewards and pleasure encouraged by such abstinence programs. Why would we expect those teenagers to ever view marital sex as anything more than a fun activity if they’ve spent years investing themselves in that view?
Not to mention that such an approach doesn’t really work too well for its own purpose. To paraphrase a demotivational poster, “Abstinence sometimes pays off later, but fornication always pays off now.”
The anti-contraception argument seems far too reliant on a hyper-calvinistic view of God. Proponents often say that, because God is sovereign, it is best to let Him decide the number of children a woman should have. In a perfect world this would be fine – unfortunately, due to the Fall, most aspects to life on earth are flawed. Thus, while we trust God to make “all things work together for good,” we also take medicine and undergo surgery to preserve our health. While pregnancy is not a disease, it has been affected by the Fall: “in pain you shall bring forth children.” Many women have experienced serious physical problems through childbirth. Furthermore, many families don’t have the resources, both physical and spiritual to handle a family of over ten children.
Of course, contraception is a complicated issue, and I don’t have all the answers. I believe that most usages of contraception in our culture and churches may well be sinful. However, it is innapropriate to compare the practice to the sin of abortion. How can regulating the issue of our fallen bodies be equivalent to murdering an individual? Contraception is no more “playing God” than medicine or science is – it’s a device we use to cope with a fallen universe.
Furthermore, many families don’t have the resources, both physical and spiritual to handle a family of over ten children.
Of course, contraception is a complicated issue, and I don’t have all the answers. I believe that most usages of contraception in our culture and churches may well be sinful. However, it is innapropriate to compare the practice to the sin of abortion. How can regulating the issue of our fallen bodies be equivalent to murdering an individual? Contraception is no more “playing God” than medicine or science is – it’s a device we use to cope with a fallen universe.
Josh,
Where do I begin? First, I understand where you are coming from. I use to think the same way, then I spent two years seriously studying the issue. Reading what 2000 years of Christian theologians had to say about it was a real eye opener.
Very few women would actually have 10 children if they did not use contraception. That is a canard which I addressed earlier this week on another thread. From what I have read, given present ages of first marriage, fertile woman could expect to give birth to about five children assuming that the mother breastfed for at least one year each child. That undoubtedly would be a financial burden, as it always has been. (Christian writers through the centuries have condemned this as an excuse for using contraception, showing that it simply is not true that children use to be a economic asset and are now a economic drain.)
The Bible explicitly states twice that God told Adam and then Noah to be fruitful and mulitply. Many dispute whether that was a command or a blessing. I take it to be the latter, but it does not matter as to the conclusion to be drawn. If it is a command, we must follow it; if it is a blessing, why would we want to reject it. Lest there be any doubt, the Bible tells us that children are a blessing and that blessed is the man who has a lot of them. St. John Chrystosom called contraception contemning the gifts of God. It is not hyper-Calvinistic to say that one may not disobey a command of God or contemn His blessings without at the same time sinning. It is, rather, antinomian. It might be hyper-Calvinistic to say, don’t set the broken arm, God will heal it if it is His will and not if it is not. The Bible does not say that a broken arm is a blessing; it does say children are.
I will not judge a woman for using contraceptionwho has been told that another pregnancy will kill her. Nor will I judge others who face the potential issues we may face regarding future children for using contraception. That is a place for pastoral counselling, though such counselling should, I believe, be sought only from someone who rejects the general view that contraception is a morally neutral issue. As with those who raise life of the mother, rape and incest to defend all abortions, raising the hard cases which may justify contraception does not justify its use when those factors are not present. Unless you believe that contraception is morally neutral, then you must define the circumstances in which it is permissible and in which it is not. T.S. Eliot, who supported permitting contraception, specifically chastised the bishops of the 1930 Lambeth Conference for their failure to make such a definition, noting that their failure to do so would lead to what we have today, indiscriminate use of contraception without even a recognition that their is a moral issue.
As to how it compares to abortion, Calvin called contraception murder and many early church fathers compared it to abortion. Whatever the case, if motives matter, in many cases, the same motives that are used to justify abortion are used to justify contraception. Josh, read what 2000 years of Christians have written about; don’t take my or anyone elses word for it. Then ask yourself how the Holy Spirit could have permitted 19 centuries of pastors and spiritual advisors to mislead His flock on such a serious and intimate matter only to correct it in the last 75 years.
The anti-contraception argument seems far too reliant on a hyper-calvinistic view of God.
How does that work for those of us who aren’t Calvinist?
Proponents often say that, because God is sovereign, it is best to let Him decide the number of children a woman should have.
Because God is sovereign, it is best for man to obey His commands. I’m still wrestling with whether or not His commands actually mean we should not use contraception, but my wife and I are leaning that direction. In our own marriage we don’t use contraception and I tend to slowly lean toward the camp that says contraception goes against God’s plan for mankind.
In a perfect world this would be fine – unfortunately, due to the Fall, most aspects to life on earth are flawed.
Many things would be different in a perfect world. But the world isn’t perfect. Nonetheless it was created good and God’s ways are certainly good and we should always follow His ways regardless of the state of the world.
Thus, while we trust God to make “all things work together for good,” we also take medicine and undergo surgery to preserve our health.
The early command given was to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth (to cite just one place an argument can be made against contraception). To oppose contraception would seem to be to honor this and other biblical positions on marriage and sexuality. As far as health goes, we are told to take care of our bodies and in our modern era we can best do that with the help of doctors. Nothing in Scripture gives any indication that we cannot seek human assistance as we trust God with our health.
Certainly the issue can get complicated when a woman’s health is threatened, but that is rarely the case. This is the argument used by abortion proponents: “We have to keep a health exception to any laws against abortion!” It is rarely used for that reason. Contraception is most commonly used by people who want all the fun and none of the responsibility. This is blunt, but this is true. A culture of entertainment and entitlement has people believing the best kind of life is a life of liesure and no responsibility and one way to exercise that life is by putting children off and reducing the number of children in the home. But God never says blessed is he with the most toys. Rather, blessed is the man whose quiver is full.
The distinction between contraception and other issues of medicine/science — and I’m probably over-simplifying here, but if so someone will be kind enough to smash my over-simplification to tiny bits and give the real argument :) — the distinction is between opposing the results of the fall, and changing the nature of man.
For example: if someone’s kidneys cease to work, we connect a machine that helps perform the function of the kidneys. The body is failing to function as it was created to function, and we are supplying outside help to enable it to function again.
As God created the body to function, when a man and a woman have sexual intercourse while the woman is fertile, she becomes pregnant. The fall introduced an element of pain in childbirth that, we infer, was not there before. It is appropriate to correct the results of the fall through scientific and medical means where possible; but bearing children is not a result of the fall — pain in childbirth is. Therefore, at least in theory, it is permissible to respond medically to that pain.
But contraception does not enable the body to function as it was designed to; it prevents it from doing so. When people prevent the body from operating as it should in other ways — binging and purging, for example, or deliberately removing a limb — we see this as disordered. Why does opposing the natural order of the body become a positive thing in the one instance of contraception?
There may be exceptions to the general rule; as GL has already pointed out, if pregnancy is likely to kill the mother, the issue should be considered. (I honestly don’t know the answer to that one, but I’m willing to acknowledge the reality of the question.) However, in my analogy, that would be similar to saying that because the foot has gangrene, we must cut it off to prevent it infecting the entire body. It may be necessary; but it is certainly not ideal, and if there is any possible way to save the foot without killing the patient, one wants to do so. We don’t cut off the foot because a toe is broken.
For those of you new to the magazine, here are a few resources from Touchstone:
Juli Loesch Wiley’s The Delightful Secrets of Sex.
Patrick Henry Reardon’s The Roots of Roe V. Wade.
David Mills’ Choosing Love and Making Life.
W. Bradford Wilcox’s The Facts of Love and Marriage.
I don’t often get to reuse something I wrote on another thread, but this is an exception:
I have a problem with this approach, in that it is not consistent with the Orthdodox perspective on marriage (see John Meyendorff, “Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective”, according to which marriage is first and foremost a “mysterion” or sacrament that has (to use Meyendorff’s words), “no utilitarian purpose”. By this, he meant that marriage cannot have as its rationale either procreation or securing of property, or any other “secular” objective. Its sole purpose is to serve as a sign of the relationship between God and man, Christ and the Church and the persons of the Trinity with each other. He points out that before the New Covenant opened immortality to all, man attempted to gain vicarious immortality through progeny (and also by increasing the fortune of his house through advantageous unions). With the New Covenant, this rationale falls away.
From this starting point, I will go on to address the issue of artificial contraception. As an Orthodox Christian (albeit one in communion with Rome), I do not think that the kind of absolute, legalistic position being espoused here is consistent either with the Orthodox theology of marriage (in which the begetting of children is a fruit of marriage, not a purpose of marriage), or with the principle of oikonomia whereby the Church has an obligation, in its “stewardship” of souls, to take into account individual circumstances and human frailties. In other words, one size may not fit all. The assumption seems to be that a married couple ought to use natural family planning, or none at all. Yet even the most sophisticated methods of NFP are not effective for all women, and some women may have very good reasons NOT to become pregnant. Similarly, there may be very good reasons for a man to use a barrier method of contraception (i.e., a condom) within marriage; e.g., the man (or woman) is infected with HIV, and the use of a condom would reduce the risk of cross-infection (to defuse incipient moments of sanctimony, let us assume that the infection was received through a blood transfusion). Now, in Latin moral theology, this would (or should) be covered by the principle of double effect, but there are many absolutists who would say that the rule against contraception is absolulte, and that the only alternative for the couple is continence. But that, of course, imposes upon them an heroic lifestyle (celibacy) that is not for every person, and should not be imposed in any case.
The late Melkite Archbiship Joseph (Raya) of Nazareth (may his memory be eternal), was a very wise and gentle man, a spiritual father to many people, Catholic and Orthodox alike. In his book, “Crowning–the Christian Marriage”, which is used by the Melkite Greek Catholic Church as a wedding preparatory text, he wrote at some length about contraception in a balanced and humane way:
From Crowning: The Christian Marriage, by Archbishop Joseph (Raya)
Birth Control
In a world where eroticism dominates the hearts and minds of men and women, it is almost impossible to honor the Christian vision of a sexuality more precious than pleasure and more honorable than social necessity. In our days, the problems of birth control are heart rending.
In his praiseworthy attempt to counteract a sexual morality falsified by a secularized society and atheistic propaganda, Pope Paul VI, who at the time of the Second Vatican Council had reserved to himself the final decision on birth control, called upon a papal commission to advise him before publishing the official Church doctrine.
Over three quarters of the members, chosen by the Pope for their wisdom and reliability, offered the majority opinion endorsing a carefully qualified use of birth control, and proposed a revision of the current unqualified condemnation.
Pope Paul VI, however, disregarded their advice and published the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, maintaining the negative position. There is a present a painful tension between the supporters of rigidity in this matter, and those who believe it is unjustified.
The Byzantine ceremony of Crowning glorifies Christian chastity. Chastity means integrity of the human relation, integration of the forces of life into the personalistic aspects of nuptial love, which leads the couple into the Kingdom, into the peace and harmony of life. Both fertile and childless couples go beyond the mere functional: the combine the instinctive and passionate movements of their love, integrating them into a single act of ascent of pure goodness. It is not in spite of marriage, but in its fulfillment in peace, harmony and supreme joy that couples live the supernatural and holy reality of their union, chastity.
In the embrace of love, Christian couples are chaste. They are perfectly and entirely for each other. “I am my Beloved’s and my Beloved is mine” (Canticle of Canticles). In genuine faith, they assume their human and spiritual responsibilities, and choose the best ways, pleasing to God, to achieve what they have set out to do. Birth control is in some way their responsibility. Vatican Council II has clearly established that conscience is the most sacred core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths.
The theologian Paul Evdokimos, in his study on the “Sacrament of Love”, summarizes the attitude of Eastern theology on birth control: The Church “addresses herself to evangelical metanoia, and hopes to change man and woman into a new creation, to render them charismatic; She exorcises demonic powers and protects the Gate of Life; She discerns among the spirits, and shows the pathways to ultimate liberation; She does not define the rules of social life, and does not prescribe panacaeas. . . “ (p.175). The Church should never refuse to advise when advice is sought, but should not try to manipulate the intimacy of husband and wife. Patriarch Maximos IV of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem proclaimed at the Council of Vatican II, “The Church does not penetrate into the nuptial chamber. She stands at the door.”
The Byzantine Church does indeed believe that the Sacrament of Crowning establishes the man and woman as prophets, king and queen of supernatural worth, and robes them with the Royal Priesthood of Christ. Their dignity is real. Consequently, their vocation will be to form personal decisions, and to judge situations, in order to find solutions to the individual circumstances of their lives.
Many thanks to all who have outlined the orthodox arguments against contraception. While in previous posts I have expressed certain reservations about an across the board condemnation, every day I ponder the issue I come around more and more to the position that (barring truly exceptional cases) it is morally illicit, if for no other reason than the common testimony of the patristic fathers on the issue.
Having said that, we should not push an equation of contraception and abortion. Calvin was simply wrong in so doing. To disobey God by refusing to bring a life into being is simply not the same as taking a life already created, any more than (for example) masturbation is adultery. A couple of years ago, in a blog he posted on this same topic, Dr. Mills unfortunately compared use of contraception to genocide. That is as illogical as asserting that a person who refuses to write a book is guilty of torching all public libraries. One of the necessary components of proper moral theology is that of due proportion, and it seems to me that this is in danger of being lost here.
Dear Stuart,
Per my previous posts on this topic, I would agree that the some of the reasoning in Humane Vitae is strained. But replaying your “bad Western method / good Eastern method” broken record is hardly a convincing argument — particularly to a primarily Western Christian audience.
The main question I have for you is: Since when has procreation ever been a “‘secular’ objective”, rather than central to the mysterion of the sacrament of matrimony?? The Book of Common Prayer rightly places it with the fathers as the first and chief purpose of marriage. To hold that the mysterion of marriage is somehow independent of this purpose (whether or not that purpose is fulfilled due to accidental circumstances) is theologically short-sighted, to say the least.
Many thanks to all who have outlined the orthodox arguments against contraception. While in previous posts I have expressed certain reservations about an across the board condemnation, every day I ponder the issue I come around more and more to the position that (barring truly exceptional cases) it is morally illicit, if for no other reason than the common testimony of the patristic fathers on the issue.
Having said that, we should not push an equation of contraception and abortion. Calvin was simply wrong in so doing. To disobey God by refusing to bring a life into being is simply not the same as taking a life already created, any more than (for example) masturbation is adultery. A couple of years ago, in a blog he posted on this same topic, Dr. Mills unfortunately compared use of contraception to genocide. That is as illogical as asserting that a person who refuses to write a book is guilty of torching all public libraries. One of the necessary components of proper moral theology is that of due proportion, and it seems to me that this is in danger of being lost here.
Dear Stuart,
Per my previous posts on this topic, I would agree that the some of the reasoning in Humane Vitae is strained. But replaying your “bad Western method / good Eastern method” broken record is hardly a convincing argument — particularly to a primarily Western Christian audience.
The main question I have for you is: Since when has procreation ever been a “‘secular’ objective”, rather than central to the mysterion of the sacrament of matrimony?? The Book of Common Prayer rightly places it with the fathers as the first and chief purpose of marriage. To hold that the mysterion of marriage is somehow independent of this purpose (whether or not that purpose is fulfilled due to accidental circumstances) is theologically short-sighted, to say the least.
>>>Per my previous posts on this topic, I would agree that the some of the reasoning in Humane Vitae is strained. But replaying your “bad Western method / good Eastern method” broken record is hardly a convincing argument — particularly to a primarily Western Christian audience.< << That's hardly what I am doing. And, if I am not allowed to express the perspective of my own confession, just which confessions have your imprimatur for use on this blog? >>>The main question I have for you is: Since when has procreation ever been a “‘secular’ objective”, rather than central to the mysterion of the sacrament of matrimony?< << As Meyendorff points out--with extensive biblical and historical references--from the Fall of Man through to the Resurrection of Christ. >>>The Book of Common Prayer rightly places it with the fathers as the first and chief purpose of marriage.< << But BCP is embedded within one Tradition, which of course, does not express the entire mind of the Church. >>>To hold that the mysterion of marriage is somehow independent of this purpose (whether or not that purpose is fulfilled due to accidental circumstances) is theologically short-sighted, to say the least.<<< That depends on your line of reasoning. The West (and yes, I am going to lecture) has taken a somewhat more dour stance on sex, even within marriage, at least since the time of Tertullian. Augustine's doctrine of original sin took that up and modified it, but on the whole continued the line of thought that marriage makes sex acceptable, but only for the purposes of procreation. Sex is always suspect, for (and all you need do is read some of the Latin Fathers on the subject) it is a result of passion, and passions are the gateway to sin (that many of the Latin Fathers also believed (or assumed) that the stain of original sin was transmitted through sexual intercourse didn't help matters. No similar train of thought is found amongst the Greek Fathers (though some of the more ascetic of the Desert Fathers were rather down on women as a source of their own temptations). Rather, marriage is a true sacrament that perdures beyond the grave (which, by the way, it does not do in Western "til death do us part" theology), and as a sacrament it has no earthly PURPOSE other than to bear witness to the Kingdom. On the other hand, the fruits of the sacrament--the result of the cooperation between the parties to the marriage and the Holy Spirit--can be the bearing of children as an act of subcreation between Husband, Wife, and God. I suggest you read closely what Sayedna Joseph wrote, rather than reflexively saying (in a non-judgemental way that does not at all imply that Western theology has primacy) that "this seems theologically shortsighted". Since it has been an element of Eastern Christian theology for centuries, maybe it should be taken as something worthy at least of consideration rather than summary dismissal. Now, history is history, and the development of doctrine cannot be divorced from that. You guys went your way, we went ours. For centuries now, we've been hectored on how your way is THE way (that's what 1054 was all about). Now all I am asking is that you LISTEN to a perspective that is DIFFERENT. Take it or leave it. You may or may not find it convincing or useful. But unless all Christian perspective are presented, and unless we are allowed to speak honestly about our feelings concerning other perspectives, there can be no real dialogue, and thus no ecumenical encounter.
Now there’s this from Reuters today:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2006-08-18T123847Z_01_N17256050_RTRUKOC_0_US-AIDS-CONDOMS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Condom fashion.
Interesting. In response to Firinnteine (and GL), I would present the analogy of a physical activity like running. Running is healthy, good for us, and part of what our bodies were made to do. However, in our fallen world it can often cause injuries, and at times should probably be avoided. There is nothing wrong with running itself, but it has consequences (which are sometimes harmful, given the Fall). Perhaps it can also be appropriate to regulate other physical activities, like conception. Incidentally, most of the older couples I know who have not used birth control have about ten kids, and many of those began their marraiges using birth control. Most healthy young people who wish to get married before too many years (like myself) will probably have at least ten.
That said, I’m still not sure which side of this I belong on. Most of the above comments have been helpful, but I have quite a few questions. Can’t someone use birth control and still “be fruitful and multiply”? That is, could not a couple use birth control and still follow that command/blessing? If contraception is as wrong as Chrysostum says it is, why is it never specifically prohibited in the Bible? Again, thank you, everyone, for all the comments.
BTW, this is a pretty decent Christian pro-contraception link, for those who are interested. http://www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/marriage_family/bc.html
>>>If contraception is as wrong as Chrysostum says it is, why is it never specifically prohibited in the Bible? Again, thank you, everyone, for all the comments.<<< But Chrysostom also said that, the world being full of people, the injunction to be fruitful and multiply had been fulfilled. If you want to take things out of context, anyway. Also, remember that when Chrysostom was writing, all effective forms of contraception were abortifactants.
If readers will indulge a protest: Mr. Altena writes: “in a blog he posted on this same topic, Dr. Mills unfortunately compared use of contraception to genocide. That is as illogical as asserting that a person who refuses to write a book is guilty of torching all public libraries.” Not remembering writing any such thing, I’ve just searched the weblog and found nothing of the sort.
The closest thing I found was something Jim Kushiner wrote when commenting on NARAL, in which he said “Abortion is not birth control. (It is population control, as is genocide.)” Which is, btw, perfectly logical.
One does get little narked at being misquoted and then insulted in the bargain. I can easily imagine my writing something dopey but not something foolish in the sense Mr. Altena suggests.
If contraception is as wrong as Chrysostum says it is, why is it never specifically prohibited in the Bible?
That is a very good question. I probably should avoid this because it will likely call down recriminations from those who know Biblical Greek far better than I do, but it is possible that some New Testament passages may in fact condemn the use of contraceptive drugs. For example, Galatians 5:20 condemns “sorcery” or “witchcraft.” The Greek word is translated as “sorcery” or “witchcraft” is tranliterated as pharmakeia. See http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5331&version=kjv. The same word is used in Revelation 9:21 and 18:23 and related words are used elsewhere (pharmakeus or pharmakos is used in Revelation 21:8 and translated as sorcerers and pharmakos is used Revelatin 22:15 and likewise translated as sorcerers). What does this have to do with contraception? Some scholars have argued that what was being referred to was the use of drugs or magic for contraceptive purposes. When one understands the ancient world’s understanding of contraception as being achieved through potions and magic this is not an unreasonable deduction, though I must be honest and say that it would be hard to prove that with certainty that this was what was intended.
It is also interesting to note that the Didache also condemned practicing magic in a section that also condemned sexual perversions, abortion and infanticide. Again, some have understood this condemnation of practicing magic to be a reference to contraception, which would make sense in light of some of the other practices condemned in that section.
Note also that Luther and Calvin both found that Scripture condemned contraception. As for it not being stated explicitly, neither is the Church’s condemnation of abortion or polygamy stated explicitly. Those practices are inferred in exactly the same what that the condemnation of contraception is inferred. Again, you should really read what has been written during the past 2000 years by Christians on the subject. Some of those writers, names with which all are readily familiar or should be, have relied at least of part on Scripture to make their case. There is simply to much material to cite it all here. I will say that one would be hard pressed to make the case that St. Chrysostom did not explicitly condemn contraception and not all of his condemnation was based on a connection with abortion. He was by no means the first Church Father to explicitly condemn the practice nor by no means the last.
Let the criticism of my post begin. :-)
Stuart,
I am surprised. Of all the poster here, I would think that you would be the one who would argue most forcefully that 19 centuries of uniform Christian teaching on a matter makes a pretty compelling case. Are you taking the John Noonan approach that our poor, ignorant Church Fathers taught a serious error because they lacked modern knowledge of how reproduction actually occurred?
Can you give me even one recognized Christian theologian or thinker who lived and died before 1900 who wrote and/or taught that contraception was permissible? If so, I would welcome any citations you have to offer. I mean that sincerely. I have asked others this question and have yet to receive any citations to any such writing. I have failed in my efforts to find any such writing. I have, on the other hand, found boat loads of writings prior to that date condemning the practice.
>>>Can you give me even one recognized Christian theologian or thinker who lived and died before 1900 who wrote and/or taught that contraception was permissible? <<< Mostly they did not write about it at all. The paradigm of their time and place mitigated against it, since there were no reliable means of artificial birth control that did not involve killing a fetus. What the Fathers, at least in the East, taught was marriage as sacrament, and the role of husband and wife as, in the words Bishop Joseph "prophets, king and queen of supernatural worth, and robes them with the Royal Priesthood of Christ. Their dignity is real. Consequently, their vocation will be to form personal decisions, and to judge situations, in order to find solutions to the individual circumstances of their lives." Within that context, it is their job, after prayerful discernment, to act in accordance with their conscience on this matter. The Church, in Eastern thought, does not impose, but holds up an ideal to which one aspires. As Bishop Joseph quotes Evdokimov: "The Church “addresses herself to evangelical metanoia, and hopes to change man and woman into a new creation, to render them charismatic; She exorcises demonic powers and protects the Gate of Life; She discerns among the spirits, and shows the pathways to ultimate liberation; She does not define the rules of social life, and does not prescribe panacaeas. . . “; and as Patriarch Maximos IV noted, "The Church does not penetrate into the nuptial chamber. She stands at the door.” The Eastern Church abhors legalism and rejects one size fits all solutions to complex problems; that is why there are relatively few absolute rules, and a generous application of oikonomia. Believers are first and foremost persons, and thus not amenable to abstract solutions that objectify them. It is for this reason, for instance, that the Eastern Churches, while holding up as the ideal one marriage in a lifetime (since marriage is an indissoluable bond between man and woman not broken even by death), recognizes human weakness and both allows for divorce under limited circumstances, while allowing non-sacramental second (and occasionally third) marriages (the rite is not called "Crowning" but simply "re-marriage", and is highly penitential) after divorce or widowhood. There is the ideal, and then there is the messy reality of human existence. That is why the Church is empowered both to bind and to loose. Justice must always be tempered by mercy, as Christ always tempered his justice with mercy. Legalism with regard to the indissoluability would condemn men and women to live of solitude, to an heroic life of celibacy which is not something that can be imposed; the Church cannot force someone to be a hero, and so in its merciful oikonomia makes concessions to human weakness without denigrating the ideal state. As it is with the indissoluability of marriage, so it is with contraception. Rather than stressing the evil of contraception, it is better to stress the sacredness of sex and its rightful expression within marriage. Therein lies one of the absolute rules: sex is holy only within the bounds of matrimony wherein it supports the sacramental purpose of marriage as expressing the relationship of God and man, Christ and the Church. Children are a desired outcome of that sacramental purpose, not the purpose itself (otherwise, marriage involving someone objectively infertile could not be justified). Having children is an act of co-creation with God, and in the fullness of Christian marriage, one should fully expect and desire to have children. When and how many children to have is not something that the Church can determine or impose on the couple without infringing on the sacramental bond they possess. On the other hand, marrying without any intention of having children generally shows a refusal to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in the grace bestowed by marriage (Eastern Christian theology believes the efficacy of a sacrament requires synergia, or willing cooperation between the recipient of the sacrament and the Holy Spirit). Even then, there may be just cause for not having any children. There is a difference between doing so in order to be unemcumbered and enjoy selfish pleasures, and doing so because there are serious health risks involved. Likewise, the means by which one decides to limit, space or not have any children must be determined by the husband and wife, since only they are intimately familiar with their own situation. They may (and ought) to see guidance from their spiritual father, who will lay out what the Church sees as ideal; he will encourage and support them to try to live up to that ideal; ultimately, though, they must discern the right way for themselves within their own domestic church. Since the injunction against abortion is absolute (abortion being equated with murder since the first century), there are indeed boundaries withiin which that decision must be made. From my perspective, the current approach advocated by most Christians here puts the cart before the horse: begin with the integrity of the human person, the sacredness of sex and the sacramental purpose of sex within marriage. Putting so much emphasis on "hydraulics", on what acts, positions, and methods may be used between husband and wife infringes on their role as kings, priests and prophets, and renders their crowning moot. In an ideal world, all who marry would feel unencumbered to have as many children as God will grant them. For some, this is their choice, and I rejoice in it. For others, this is either not possible or desirable. The Church would tell them that natural means of limiting children are best, especially in that they require a degree of spiritual asceticism (we're always big on that). But this may not be right for all couples. Some have physiological problems that make these methods unreliable. Others may require artificial methods to provide a higher degree of security (if childbearing is medically proscribed). I would not tell such people that their choice is either to sin or to abstain from the marriage bed altogether; not even Paul believed in sexless marriage (rather the opposite). Stress sex within marriage. Stress marriage as sacrament. Sanctity will emerge from living sacramentally, not through rigid imposition of rules.
Stuart, I for one am generally intrigued by your “Western vs. Eastern” discussions, and don’t think this one was excessively harsh against the West. As an engineer who designs hydraulics for a living, I also found your last post quite amusing.
Stuart, I’m troubled by a couple of things you say — if marriage is a sacrament, it seems to me that marital acts must be in some sense sacramental — and if that be the case, how is it possible (with all due respect to the Patriarch) that “The Church does not penetrate into the nuptial chamber,” if a sacramental act is taking place there? Can sacrament be sundered from the Church??
However, I thought this was beautifully put (even if I didn’t quite like the sentence that followed :) —
“Rather than stressing the evil of contraception, it is better to stress the sacredness of sex and its rightful expression within marriage. Therein lies one of the absolute rules: sex is holy only within the bounds of matrimony wherein it supports the sacramental purpose of marriage as expressing the relationship of God and man, Christ and the Church.”
Amen and amen.
>Mrs. Torode offers an update on the couple’s Web site
If only there were some way to identify this “web site” thing. Perhaps even provide an easy way to get there!
Alas, it must not be possible …
Kudos, Stuart. May the day come soon when God heals the Great Schism, and Catholics and Orthodox can commune at the same chalice. Without asserting a simple East good, West bad paradigm, I’ve gotta say that the idea of oikonomia is most difficult for the West to wrap it’s mind around. After my chrismation, I was most zealous to observe the Wednesday and Friday fasts, and came close to being scandalized when a most devout Orthodox cheerfully admitted to consuming a backyard hamburger when the 4th of July came on a Friday. “Local feast,” he observed. I didn’t get it then, still being intellectually a son of the West, and believing that rules were there to be followed. Period. I think that many Western Christians see oikonomia as license, because from the outside, that’s what it looks like. (It isn’t, of course, but I’m not sure how one can see that without some grounding in Eastern theology, and more importantly, some experience in living a sacramental life, under the guidance of one’s spiritual father.) Without oikonomia, though, we see the performance anxiety so many Christians suffer, because we cannot live up to the ideal, but have no framework for simultaneously affirming the ideal and living as best one can. What usually happens is that the ideal gets dumbed down, as it were, leading to the feel-good Gospel too often preached and too often accepted.
>Without oikonomia, though, we see the performance
>anxiety so many Christians suffer, because we cannot
>live up to the ideal, but have no framework for
>simultaneously affirming the ideal and living as best
>one can.
That’s the “best one can”? If one thinks that there is value to fasting on Friday, having a hamburger instead?
Dr. Mills,
I did not insult you, but I nonetheless apologize unconditionally for any offense given and ask your forgiveness. I said your argument was illogical. I may be right or wrong in that, but it is not an insult. We are all capable of illogicity.
I reproduce below the post to which I refer, from May 21, 2003. While you did not actually use the word “genocide” itself, I think the implied comparison is quite clear in the language of the last three paragraphs. (I have no problem with what comes before). For strict accuracy’s sake, I should instead have written “. . . unfortunately implicitly compared use of contraception. . . .”, and apologize for not so doing.
But one simply does not invoke the name of Hannah Arendt unless one wants to bring in the subject of genocide, whether explicitly or implicitly — especially when the comparisons then move on to the genocidal murders of Saddam Hussein (and throw in clubbing of baby seals — the secular media image of “animal genocide” — to boot). Possibly that was not your intent; but I see it as the logical outcome of your argument when writ large from the individual person to society in general.
I agree that abortion is a form of genocide. But some people here are going further and equating contraception with abortion (e.g. calling it murder.) If contraception is a form of abortion, and abortion is a form of genocide, then contraception also is a form of genocide. It seems to me that the tenor and logic of your 2003 post also inexorably tend in that direction.
I think that the logical fallacy I sense is in attributing to all those who use or support use of contraception (as opposed to some) a conscious desire and intent that specific human beings not be alive, as opposed to a more generic concern (however misconceived) for prudential consideration of time, energy, material and emotional resources, etc., without any specific person in mind. (I’m not defending the rationale, just stating it.) The specific intent is not present because the specific person, being not yet in existence, is not a specific object of intent. To offer an admittedly imperfect analogy, the fact that I may wish (in the proper sense of conformity to God’s will, not in an uncharitable sense) that sinners who remain finally unrepentant suffer damnation does not mean that I wish damnation upon any particular persons yet to be born.
As stated before, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the use of contraception is generally a grievous sin. But it is not murder, or even close to murder. Many of the people who use it do so because their consciences are mis-informed as to its significance and import, not because they have a humanist utilitarian mentality toward their fellow human beings. I guess that I, too, get “a little narked” when deeply faithful Christians friends I love are written off as being on the moral level of the villains who run C. S. Lewis’ N.I.C.E. due to their particular sin here. (Especially when one couple I can think of is deeply involved in pro-life activism and caring for handicapped children.)
I will say it again — due proportion is needed in the moral assessment here. We do God no service by demonizing those who sin here, any more than we would serve Him by denying the sin involved.
—————–
ANTI-HUMANISM ON ABC:
A reader writes to report that
This morning, ABC’s “Good Morning America” featured a foreign public service commercial (I don’t remember which nationality) intended as a brief interjection of humor. The ad depicted a bedraggled young father pushing a shopping cart through the aisles of a grocery store, with a young boy of about five in tow. The child seizes upon a bag of candy, which the father insists he may not have.
To the father’s consternation and embarrassment, the child proceeds to throw an enormous and very public fit, which occupies the great majority of the commercial’s time. Showing a final look of exasperation on the father’s face, the ad closes with the “public service” message/punch line, in large block letters across the screen: WEAR A CONDOM.
The contraception and abortion debates are so often couched in terms of “preventing unwanted pregnancies.” Until now, however, I had never seen that phrase so vividly – and unashamedly – extended to its logical conclusion: “prevent unwanted human beings.” I found this rather horrifying, but the Good Morning America personalities all seemed to have a good laugh.
The reader asks for comment, but she has said all that needs to be said in her last paragraph. “Humanists” don’t like humanity as such. They only like humans who do something for them: children they want, for example, but not children as children. They like children as a chosen life style accessory, accepted on their own schedule and as much as possible to their own specifications, but they do not accept them as gifts from God and blessings in themselves (as blessings however they act in grocery stores).
I think this sort of thing quite revealing. Only a deeply corrupted mind could think a father with a momentarily annoying son would be better off without him. Only a deeply corrupted heart could feel the absence of a child already born would be a good thing. (Try, for a second, to imagine one of your children not existing. Can’t do it, can you? Good.)
Everything in the normal human heart rebels against that commercial’s closing line. People who laugh at “Wear a condom” are inhumane – as inhumane, and inhuman, as those who club baby seals to death. But no one would ever make a commercial showing a baby seal being troublesome and ending with the line “Wear a fur coat.” Baby seals are cute.
The fact that such people host a popular morning television show and laugh gaily at such things just gives yet another example of Hannah Arendt’s famous insight into the banality of evil. True inhumanity is just as likely to be promoted by a cute, perky, perfectly groomed talk show hostess as the spokesman for Saddam Hussein.
The difference between killing humans who already exist and wishing many humans won’t come to exist is not all that great. Both grow from the belief that people are only good if they are useful to you. As in our society a mother can believe that she has the right to dispose of a child she cannot use, so in places like Iraq a ruler can believe that he has the right to dispose of people he cannot use. The philosophy is the same in both cases.
—David Mills
8:11 AM
Dr. Mills,
I did not insult you, but I nonetheless apologize unconditionally for any offense given and ask your forgiveness. I said your argument was illogical. I may be right or wrong in that, but it is not an insult. We are all capable of illogicity.
I reproduce below the post to which I refer, from May 21, 2003. While you did not actually use the word “genocide” itself, I think the implied comparison is quite clear in the language of the last three paragraphs. (I have no problem with what comes before). For strict accuracy’s sake, I should instead have written “. . . unfortunately implicitly compared use of contraception. . . .”, and apologize for not so doing.
But one simply does not invoke the name of Hannah Arendt unless one wants to bring in the subject of genocide, whether explicitly or implicitly — especially when the comparisons then move on to the genocidal murders of Saddam Hussein (and throw in clubbing of baby seals — the secular media image of “animal genocide” — to boot). Possibly that was not your intent; but I see it as the logical outcome of your argument when writ large from the individual person to society in general.
I agree that abortion is a form of genocide. But some people here are going further and equating contraception with abortion (e.g. calling it murder.) If contraception is a form of abortion, and abortion is a form of genocide, then contraception also is a form of genocide. It seems to me that the tenor and logic of your 2003 post also inexorably tend in that direction.
I think that the logical fallacy I sense is in attributing to all those who use or support use of contraception (as opposed to some) a conscious desire and intent that specific human beings not be alive, as opposed to a more generic concern (however misconceived) for prudential consideration of time, energy, material and emotional resources, etc., without any specific person in mind. (I’m not defending the rationale, just stating it.) The specific intent is not present because the specific person, being not yet in existence, is not a specific object of intent. To offer an admittedly imperfect analogy, the fact that I may wish (in the proper sense of conformity to God’s will, not in an uncharitable sense) that sinners who remain finally unrepentant suffer damnation does not mean that I wish damnation upon any particular persons yet to be born.
As stated before, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the use of contraception is generally a grievous sin. But it is not murder, or even close to murder. Many of the people who use it do so because their consciences are mis-informed as to its significance and import, not because they have a humanist utilitarian mentality toward their fellow human beings. I guess that I, too, get “a little narked” when deeply faithful Christians friends I love are written off as being on the moral level of the villains who run C. S. Lewis’ N.I.C.E. due to their particular sin here. (Especially when one couple I can think of is deeply involved in pro-life activism and caring for handicapped children.)
I will say it again — due proportion is needed in the moral assessment here. We do God no service by demonizing those who sin here, any more than we would serve Him by denying the sin involved.
—————–
ANTI-HUMANISM ON ABC:
A reader writes to report that
This morning, ABC’s “Good Morning America” featured a foreign public service commercial (I don’t remember which nationality) intended as a brief interjection of humor. The ad depicted a bedraggled young father pushing a shopping cart through the aisles of a grocery store, with a young boy of about five in tow. The child seizes upon a bag of candy, which the father insists he may not have.
To the father’s consternation and embarrassment, the child proceeds to throw an enormous and very public fit, which occupies the great majority of the commercial’s time. Showing a final look of exasperation on the father’s face, the ad closes with the “public service” message/punch line, in large block letters across the screen: WEAR A CONDOM.
The contraception and abortion debates are so often couched in terms of “preventing unwanted pregnancies.” Until now, however, I had never seen that phrase so vividly – and unashamedly – extended to its logical conclusion: “prevent unwanted human beings.” I found this rather horrifying, but the Good Morning America personalities all seemed to have a good laugh.
The reader asks for comment, but she has said all that needs to be said in her last paragraph. “Humanists” don’t like humanity as such. They only like humans who do something for them: children they want, for example, but not children as children. They like children as a chosen life style accessory, accepted on their own schedule and as much as possible to their own specifications, but they do not accept them as gifts from God and blessings in themselves (as blessings however they act in grocery stores).
I think this sort of thing quite revealing. Only a deeply corrupted mind could think a father with a momentarily annoying son would be better off without him. Only a deeply corrupted heart could feel the absence of a child already born would be a good thing. (Try, for a second, to imagine one of your children not existing. Can’t do it, can you? Good.)
Everything in the normal human heart rebels against that commercial’s closing line. People who laugh at “Wear a condom” are inhumane – as inhumane, and inhuman, as those who club baby seals to death. But no one would ever make a commercial showing a baby seal being troublesome and ending with the line “Wear a fur coat.” Baby seals are cute.
The fact that such people host a popular morning television show and laugh gaily at such things just gives yet another example of Hannah Arendt’s famous insight into the banality of evil. True inhumanity is just as likely to be promoted by a cute, perky, perfectly groomed talk show hostess as the spokesman for Saddam Hussein.
The difference between killing humans who already exist and wishing many humans won’t come to exist is not all that great. Both grow from the belief that people are only good if they are useful to you. As in our society a mother can believe that she has the right to dispose of a child she cannot use, so in places like Iraq a ruler can believe that he has the right to dispose of people he cannot use. The philosophy is the same in both cases.
—David Mills
8:11 AM
Dear Stuart,
First, no-one (including myself) is saying that you should “not [be] allowed to express the perspective of my own confession.” That perspective is more than welcome, and when done rightly most educative. I have learned much from many of your best posts, and am grateful for them and you. The problem is the particular manner in which you too often do it — by not simply making a positive statement of that perspective, but by repeatedly throwing in gratuitous negative criticism of alleged defects of the West. That is simply not necessary, and the cardboard stereotype thereby set up grates. When you repeatedly do that, what you in effect communicate is that your communion’s case is too shaky ot be made on its own merits. Why can’t you just state the Eastern theological rationale simpliciter and leave it at that? For, if the perspective of your own confession must needs be based on repeated criticism of the perspectives of other confessions, then is not something amiss with it?
To my knowledge, no one else posting to this site engages in a similar practice with respect to a communion other than his own. (Does anyone regularly assert the superiority of Western over Eastern theology?) I believe the objective here is and ought to be “mere Christianity”, not repeated assertion of the superiority of one’s own communion and its theological perspective. That’s all I’m asking for, Stuart — your positive side (which is excellent) without your negative one.
Second, I did not “imply that Western theology has primacy” in saying that to consider procreation as a “secular objective” and divorce it from the mysterion of matrimony “seems theologically shortsighted”. That is because I have not found any such view in the consensus of the fathers, either Western or Eastern (and, yes, I do read the fathers). They clearly regard procreation as central to the mysterion of matrimony between man and wife as the union of Christ and the Church. This is not specifically Western, but of the Great Tradition of the Church, to which the BCP is simply being faithful (as opposed to creating a “tradition” of its own.) I think that the position summarized in your blog is an eccentric effort that imposes an artificial rationale on the evidence, in an effort at might be termed “theological originality” (a disease to which traditionalists as well as revisionists can fall prey).
Incidentally, to refer to another “Mere Comments” blog topic, the relation of procreation to the mysterion of matrimony is yet another argument against contraception, a deliberately sterile marriage being typologically equivalent to a Church that refuses to preach the gospel and save new souls.
Dear Stuart,
First, no-one (including myself) is saying that you should “not [be] allowed to express the perspective of my own confession.” That perspective is more than welcome, and when done rightly most educative. I have learned much from many of your best posts, and am grateful for them and you. The problem is the particular manner in which you too often do it — by not simply making a positive statement of that perspective, but by repeatedly throwing in gratuitous negative criticism of alleged defects of the West. That is simply not necessary, and the cardboard stereotype thereby set up grates. When you repeatedly do that, what you in effect communicate is that your communion’s case is too shaky ot be made on its own merits. Why can’t you just state the Eastern theological rationale simpliciter and leave it at that? For, if the perspective of your own confession must needs be based on repeated criticism of the perspectives of other confessions, then is not something amiss with it?
To my knowledge, no one else posting to this site engages in a similar practice with respect to a communion other than his own. (Does anyone regularly assert the superiority of Western over Eastern theology?) I believe the objective here is and ought to be “mere Christianity”, not repeated assertion of the superiority of one’s own communion and its theological perspective. That’s all I’m asking for, Stuart — your positive side (which is excellent) without your negative one.
Second, I did not “imply that Western theology has primacy” in saying that to consider procreation as a “secular objective” and divorce it from the mysterion of matrimony “seems theologically shortsighted”. That is because I have not found any such view in the consensus of the fathers, either Western or Eastern (and, yes, I do read the fathers). They clearly regard procreation as central to the mysterion of matrimony between man and wife as the union of Christ and the Church. This is not specifically Western, but of the Great Tradition of the Church, to which the BCP is simply being faithful (as opposed to creating a “tradition” of its own.) I think that the position summarized in your blog is an eccentric effort that imposes an artificial rationale on the evidence, in an effort at might be termed “theological originality” (a disease to which traditionalists as well as revisionists can fall prey).
Incidentally, to refer to another “Mere Comments” blog topic, the relation of procreation to the mysterion of matrimony is yet another argument against contraception, a deliberately sterile marriage being typologically equivalent to a Church that refuses to preach the gospel and save new souls.
>>>That’s the “best one can”? If one thinks that there is value to fasting on Friday, having a hamburger instead?<<< Fasting is not an end in itself, but a means to an end--the mastery of the passions. Too many Eastern Christians have elevated the fasting rules to the point of being a "food purity" rite. When talen as a whole, the rules are amazingly stringent: On Wednesday and Friday, and on all prescribed fasting days, to abstain from meat, dairy products, eggs, fish with backbones, oil and wine leaves very little open except bread, cereals, fruits and vegetables, all eaten very plainly. Oh, and shellfish, like lobster, crab, clams, oysters, shrimp, etc. The fasting rules reflect a particular place and time, when certain types of foods were considered luxuries, and others were considered food for the poor. Of course, times changes, as do societal attitudes towards food. Today, hamburger is cheap, and lobster is dear. Yet, I can point you to all sorts of Orthodox and Eastern Catholic cookbooks that include the most elaborate (and expenseive) meals for Lent that totally pervert the meaning and purpose of fasting. The anomaly has been noted by a number of Orthodox theologians and bishops, who have tried to work through the problem (oikonomia) in a way consistent with our place and time. Thus, Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, for instance, has remarked to me, "How can I possibly tell a teenager today that it is a sin to have a tunafish or a boglogna sandwich for lunch, but that eating a lobster is permitted?" That is why Tradition is not rote repetition of that which was done in the past, but the prayerful implementation of the meaning of what was done in the past. Moreover, for many people raised in Western culture, or who came to the Church late (such as myself), any attempt to stringently observe the fasting rules is setting one's self up for a fall. And failure to succeed can lead to dispair, dispair to accedia, and eventually to dropping the entire endeavor. Mys spiritual father, a particularly wise priest, says that fasting is a matter of spiritual exercise, not a rule of law. Just as physical exercise strengthens the body gradually, so spiritual exercise strengthens the soul and spirit. Therefore, he told me, my first year of fasting, to pick something reasonable I thought I could do, and stay with it. The following year, I should add something to my fasting regime, and again in subsequent years, until gradually fasting becomes second nature. Another priest I know tells his congregation that, as they approach a fast, to resolve to go as far as they can, and then just a little bit more. Spiritual exercises such as fasting should always be done in consultation with a spiritual father, and never alone. Moreover, fasting should never become an end in itself, or a source of pride in accomplishment (be the Publican, not the Pharisee. And as a last note, abstinence from certain kinds of food are only one leg of a triangle of spiritual development, the other two being prayer and almsgiving. Without prayer, fasting is just dieting, and we can elevate some of our anorexic Hollywood starlets to the status of ascetic saints. Without almsgiving, we do not obey Christ's injunction to feed the hungry, clothe the naked or shelter the homeless. You need all three legs, and balance among them. But if I had to say which of the three was most vital, it would not be fasting.
>>>Stuart, I’m troubled by a couple of things you say — if marriage is a sacrament, it seems to me that marital acts must be in some sense sacramental — and if that be the case, how is it possible (with all due respect to the Patriarch) that “The Church does not penetrate into the nuptial chamber,” if a sacramental act is taking place there? Can sacrament be sundered from the Church??<<< The Church, as His Beatitude Maximos IV used it, refers in this case to the "institutional" element of the Church--its bishops, priests, deacons and its canonical instruments. But husband and wife are in fact a church in their own right. They wear crowns of priesthood, which they exercise within their domestic Church, which is connected sacramentally to the wider Church. The Byzantine marriage rite is in most respects similar, even identical to the rite of ordination. Therefore, within the confines of their home, they have a vocation to priesthood, and to some extent, the same obligation of good stewardship (oikonomia) that applies to bishops and priests, though in a lesser and more constrained position.
>>>Why can’t you just state the Eastern theological rationale simpliciter and leave it at that?<<< Because, as I military analyst specializing in the comparison of one system or country to another, placing things in proper context comes naturally to me. For me to say we do A, B, and C without comparing it to your X, Y and Z renders the whole thing pointless. Moreover, I am entitled to my opinion of the relative merits of A. B and C in relation to X, Y, and Z as much as the liberal Protestant theologian who comes here with a totally different understanding of what faith demands. Yet you seem to give them more slack than you give me. Finally, I wish to note that my experience over the course of a decade has demonstrated that most Christians, whether Eastern or Western, know precious little of their own particular Traditions--though they may know a lot of what we call "Baba" (or YaYa) theology--things they were told by their pious old Grannies who may or may not have known what the Church really teaches (let alone has said and taught over the centuries). So, I never take it for granted that people will have the least clue concerning something I say or write, but rather spell out as much as is needed to make the case plainly.
>>>What if we changed the words “birth control” in the above quote to “abortion” or some other sin.<<< Reductionism of this sort seldom illuminates anything.
>>>As for it not being stated explicitly, neither is the Church’s condemnation of abortion or polygamy stated explicitly. Those practices are inferred in exactly the same what that the condemnation of contraception is inferred. <<< In this, you are incorrect. Christ specifically (if subtly condemns the former in the story of the Samaritan woman. Morever, Christ lived in a Jewish culture that no longer sanctioned polygamy, which in turn was part of larger Greco-Roman Mediterranean culture that was explicitly monogamous. Just as Jesus did not see fit to condemn homosexual marriage because such a beast did not exist, so he had no need to explicitly and repeatedly condemn polygamy, since there was consensus on the issue. With regard to abortion, the Church from its inception condemned it as murder, beginning with the Apostolic Didache written in the firt century. As most contraceptive measures were abortifactant back then, a specific condemnation of the practice was wrapped up in abortion. Since midwives and alchemists were the principal manufacturers of these potions, and since their art was considered sorcery, they were specifically condemned. But the issue of non-abortifactant contraceptives never comes up, because they simply didn't know how children were actually conceived at the cellular level (e.g., it was widely believed that both men and women emitted seminal fluid, and the mixing of this fluid was essential for conception, therefore a man had to ensure that his wife had an orgasm if he wished her to have children. I suspect women started that belief).
>>>Incldentally, to refer to another “Mere Comments” blog topic, the relation of procreation to the mysterion of matrimony is yet another argument against contraception, a deliberately sterile marriage being typologically equivalent to a Church that refuses to preach the gospel and save new souls.<<< If the marriage were deliberately sterile for selfish purposes, that is one thing. If it is deliberately sterile out of necessity, that is quite another. I believe I stated this previously. Moreover, I do not see a marriage in which a couple wish to space out the births of their children, or limit the number of children, as being childless. Neither, for that matter, do you (I hope). You simply believe that there is only one way for a couple to do this, and they have Hobson's choice in the matter. I, on the other hand, recognize degrees of desirability. If a couple wished, and actually could have as many children as possible, because they truly love and cherish their children and each other, that would be the "best good". A couple that want children but need to limit how many and how quickly are not necessarily less holy than the first, but merely recognizing the reality of a fallen world. If they can accomplish their objective through natural means, that is good. But if they need to resort to artificial means, that is not necessarily bad. To me, the principal good is within the sacrament of marriage itself. Before there was artificial birth control, there was adultery, fornication, homosexuality and abortion. The presence or absence of artificial birth control had nothing to do with how prevalent or rare these phenomena were in a given place or time. Had, e.g., Paul VI in Evangelium vitae put more stress on the exalting sanctity of marriage, and less on artificial birth control, he may well have been able to lay a moral framework in which the former could have continued to flourish in the presence of the latter (especially important, since the toothpaste was already out of the tube). I suspect that a theologian the caliber of John Paul II, or Maximos IV, or Joseph Raya might have been up to the task, but that was not the case, and the Catholic Church has never really recovered from its promulgation of a teaching that was always observed with a wink and a nod (Leon Podles wrote of how the Catholic Church in the 19th century put the onus for coitus interruptus purely on the man because women would otherwise abandon the Church en masse) a teaching that neither the clergy nor the people were willing to receive.
My wife and I are both Catholic, have not practiced birth control (which doesn’t make us saints), and have 5 children (so far).
I read somewhere that the primary impulse of love is to create, and the primary impulse of sexual love is to create…children. Based on personal experience, that’s profoundly true.
Looking at my family, I can’t imagine that I’d rather have contracepted any of them out of existence, nor can I imagine that my wife and I would have the same great love and respect for each other if we had contracepted.
So when I see the reasons why contraception should be ok, this is what I ask myself: Having not contracepted, and experienced the joys and burdens of simply taking the Church’s teaching at face value without especially making it an issue of conscience, but rather obedience, if I could do it over again, would I do it differently?
No.
There’re plenty of things about my past I’d love to change, but this sure isn’t one of them. In fact, having always had an “Open Embrace” (as the Torodes would put it) is a big reason for my (fitful) progress toward God. To leave such an important thing up to God changes who you are, your worldview, what you do, how you feel, what you are as an instrument of God, as a Christian…virtually your whole existence.
Stuart,
As we generally agree (not always, but usually), I will not rise to the bait you set before me. I must, however, refute your statement that “[m]ostly [Christians who died before 1900] did not write about [contraception] at all.” I do not want the uninformed reader of this blog to accept such an erroneous statement. If by “mostly . . . they did not” you mean that only a few prominent Christians so wrote then your statement may be true. If by “mostly . . . they did not” you mean that those prominent figures did not write tomes on the subject, but treated it with crisp, clear and concise and uncompromising condemnations, then your statement is true. If, however, you mean to imply that there is not nearly 19 centuries of broken condemnation from the pens of some of Christians most prominent saints, theologians and pastors, then your statement is provably false. Before I give links to a few resources to establish this fact, I will ask you again, in all sincerity, to find even a single defense of contraception written by any prominent Christian who died before 1900.
Now for a short, and by no means exhaustive, bibliography of online resources and a few books:
I could go on, but I believe the evidence is clear, prominent Christians through the first 19 centuries of our Faith condemned contraception. I have found no exceptions. If you know of any, please let us all know and provide citations.
Our marriages are indeed beautiful images of the true marriage between Christ and His Church, a marriage intended to be life-giving and in which Christ has held nothing back from His bride so that she may be “fruitful and multiply” spiritual children who will glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.
The sentence should have read:
If, however, you mean to imply that there is not nearly 19 centuries of unbroken condemnation from the pens of some of Christians most prominent saints, theologians and pastors, then your statement is provably false.
GL–
I have read your bibliography. Most of the references I have seen before. I do not find them entirely pursuasive because (a) in many cases, oranges and apples are being mixed–abortion and contraception are placed on the same plane; and (b) that this kind of proof texting is not consistent with the Orthodox theological outlook, which takes into account the whole body of Tradition in a holistic approach. This is a matter that is firmly grounded in sacramental and moral theology, and therefore, any solution has to be consistent with the Tradition of the Church in regard to the issue. Picking and choosing from among the patristic corpus is not an acceptable substitute for an Eastern Christian.
In rebuttal to GL’s post, I therefore provide below the writings of Fr. John Meyendorff on family planning and birth control. Aside from being one of the giants of Orthodox theology in the 20th century, Fr. John was also a married priest who had several children, and therefore, the issue is of serious practical concern to him;
Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective
By John Meyendorff
XIII. Family and Family Planning
Jesus Himself, on the eve of his death, at the solemn moment when He participated with his disciples in their last Supper together, recalled the joy of childbirth: “When a woman is delivered of a child, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a child is brought into the world” (John 16:21). All parents know that the “anguish” which is so totally forgotten when the child comes is not only the physical pain of the mother, but also all the human anxieties, the financial worries, which all men and women feel so often before they have children. All this is totally gone when a new little creature, helpless and totally “your own”, appears in the family and desperately needs love and concern.
And then there is Jesus’ attitude toward children: “Calling to him a child, he puts him I the midst of them and said, ‘Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven’” (Matt 18:2). Can one understand the full meaning of this warning by the Lord—probably one of the most revealing of the entire Gospel—if one deliberately deprives oneself from having children?
In fact, childbirth and the raising of children are indeed a great joy and God’s blessing. There can be no Christian marriage without the immediate and impatient desire of both parents to receive and share this joy. A marriage where children are unwelcome is founded upon a defective, egoistic and fleshly form of love. In giving life to others, man imitates God’s creative act, and, if he refuses to do so, he not only rejects his Creator but also distorts his own humanity; for there is no humanity without an “image and likeness of God”. i.e., without a conscious or unconscious desire to be a true imitator of the life-creating Father of all.
However, we have seen above (Chapter I) that one of the essential differences between the Old Testament Judaic conception of marriage and the Christian one is that, for ancient Jews, marriage was a means of procreation only, while for Christians it is an end in itself—a union of two beings, in love, reflecting the union between Christ and the Church. And indeed, neither in the Gospels nor in St. Paul does one find the idea that childbirth “justifies” marriage. Neither does one find that idea in patristic literature. In his magnificent Homily 20 on the Epistle to the Ephesians, St. John Chrysostom defines marriage as a ‘union” and a mystery, and only occasionally mentions childbirth (see “A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers”, vol. XIII, Grand Rapids, MI, 1956, pp.143-152; see below, Appendix II).
Modern Western Christian thinking and practice are utterly confused on this point; and mass media, commenting upon and often distorting and misinterpreting the papal encyclicals that forbid artificial birth control to Roman Catholics, contribute very little to a possible clarification.
The point being that, until quite recently, Western thought on sex and marriage was entirely and almost exclusively dominated by the teaching of St. Augustine (d. 430). The peculiarity of St. Augustine’s point of view was that he considered sex and the sexual instinct as the channel through which the guilt for the “original sin” of Adam was transferred to Adam’s posterity. Marriage, therefore, was itself sinful insomuch as it presupposed sex, and could be justified only “through childbirth”. Consequently, if childbirth is artificially prevented, sexual intercourse—even in lawful marriage—is fundamentally sinful.
The Orthodox Church—as does the Roman Catholic—recognizes the sanctity of St. Augustine, but his doctrinal authority in Orthodoxy is far from being as absolute as it used to be in the West. And even if, in Eastern Christian monastic literature, sex is sometimes practically identified with sin, the general Tradition of the Church holds very firmly to the decisions of the Council of Gangra (see Appendix III), which radically rejects the opinion which condemned marriage. And certainly, if the sexual instinct—in its perverted and “fallen” form—is often connected with sin, it is certainly not the only channel through which sinfulness speeds throughout human generations. But marriage itself is a sacrament; i.e., in man-woman relations, it is being redeemed by the Cross of Christ, transfigured by the grace of the Spirit, and transformed by love into an eternal bond.
If sex equals sin, and childbirth alone can relieve the guilt, both marriage and procreation are no more than poor substitutes for the only true Christian ideal—celibacy. They have practically no positive Christian significance of their own; and of course, marital intercourse that avoids childbirth is clearly sinful, if only one adopts the Augustinian view of sex and marriage. Even if the recent papal encyclical Humanae vitae, prohibiting artificial birth control, is not based on Augustinianism, but rather stresses positive concerns for human life, it remains that ideas about the sinfulness of sex dominated Roman Catholic thought in the past and, indirectly, prevent the contemporary leadership from changing its attitude towards birth control. For how can it contradict what was its standard teaching for so many years?
The Orthodox Church, for its part, has never committed itself formally and officially on the issue. This does not mean, however, that the questions of birth control and family planning are indifferent to Orthodox Christians, and that their Christian commitment does not have practical applications in this issue. As we have shown, this Christian commitment implies the belief:
• That childbirth is the natural, holy and necessary element in Christian marriage;
• That to give life is a God-like privilege of man, which he has no right to refuse if he wants to preserve the “image and likeness of God” given him at his creation.
The papal encyclical Humanae vitae includes remarkable statement on both these points and, therefore, should not be dismissed simply because it is papal.
However, the issue of family planning also has other aspects, which are widely acknowledged and discussed today. For example, if the “life” given by parents to their children is to be a fully human life, it cannot involve only physical existence, but also parental care, education and decent living. When they beget children, parents must be ready to fulfill all these responsibilities. There are obvious economic, social or psychological situations where no guarantees can be given in this respect. And there is sometimes even a near-certainty that the newly born children will live in hunger and psychological misery.
In those situations, various forms of family planning, as old as humanity itself, have always been known to men and women. Total continence is one radical way of birth control. But is it compatible with true married life? And is not continence itself a form of limiting the God-bestowed power of giving and perpetuating life? However, both the New Testament and Church tradition consider continence as an acceptable form of family planning. Recent Roman Catholic teaching also recommends periodic continence, but forbids “artificial” means such as the “pill”. But is there a real difference between means called “artificial” and those considered “natural”? Is continence really “natural”? Is not any medical control of human functions “artificial”? Should it therefore be condemned as sinful? For even St. Paul saw that continence could lead to “burning”. Is not science able to make childbirth more humane, by controlling it, just as it controls food, habitat and health?
Straight condemnation of birth control fails to give satisfactory answers for all these questions. It has never been endorsed by the Orthodox Church as a whole, even if, at times, local Church authorities have issued statements on the matter identical to that of the Pope. In any case, it has never been the Church’s practice to give moral guidance by issuing standard formulas claiming universal validity on questions which actually require a personal act of conscience. There are forms of birth control which will be acceptable, and even unavoidable, for certain couples, while others will prefer avoiding them. This is particularly true of the “pill”.
The question of birth control and of its acceptable forms, can only be solved by individual Christian couples. They can make the right decision only if they accept their Christian commitment with ultimate seriousness, if they believe in the providence of God, if they avoid being too much concerned with material security (“Do not lay up for yourself treasures on earth”, Matt 6:19), if they realize that children are a great joy and a gift from God, if they remember that love reduced to sexual pleasure is not true love. For example, in affluent American society, there is practically never a sufficient reason to avoid children in the first two years of marriage. In any case, the advice of a good father confessor could help much in making the right “first step” in married life.
Stuart,
With all due respect, Fr. John Meyendorff lived in the 20th century. I am still waiting for even a single example of someone who lived before the 20th Century who wrote that contraception was permissible. Unless you or someone else can provide such an example, I am left with the inevitable conclusion that at least as to this issue all 20th century Christians who argue that it is have strayed from a previously unbroken and universally accepted tradition, all your protest to the contrary not withstanding.
As to proof-texting, the statements cited against contraception were clear and unequivocal. The past and current heads of your communion also thought and think so. I would have thought that you would consider anyone who was Catholic but who rejected any of his teachings as to faith and morals to be a cafeteria Catholic.
If you consider these examples of proof-texting then do you agree with Rowan Williams that arguments from the Scripture condemning homosexuality are proof-texing? You can’t have it both ways. Either words mean what they say when they are clear and unequivocal or they can mean whatever each reader wants them to mean. The fathers of our Faith for 19 centuries clearly condemned contraception and any effort to show otherwise is obfuscation of the obvious.
>>>With all due respect, Fr. John Meyendorff lived in the 20th century. I am still waiting for even a single example of someone who lived before the 20th Century who wrote that contraception was permissible. < << Please go back and read again. Pay especial attention to the broader, underlying principles enunciated, viz: >>>In those situations, various forms of family planning, as old as humanity itself, have always been known to men and women. Total continence is one radical way of birth control. But is it compatible with true married life? And is not continence itself a form of limiting the God-bestowed power of giving and perpetuating life? However, both the New Testament and Church tradition consider continence as an acceptable form of family planning. Recent Roman Catholic teaching also recommends periodic continence, but forbids “artificial” means such as the “pill”. But is there a real difference between means called “artificial” and those considered “natural”? Is continence really “natural”? Is not any medical control of human functions “artificial”? Should it therefore be condemned as sinful? For even St. Paul saw that continence could lead to “burning”. Is not science able to make childbirth more humane, by controlling it, just as it controls food, habitat and health?< << This is a considerable point. Unless you are willing to say that any form of contraception, natural or artificial, is sinful, you are left in the position of saying that contraception is permissible in SOME circumstances. It is the motivation for contraception, not the act itself, that determines whether it is sinful or not. I pose to you the following situation: A married couple decide not to have children--any children, ever--and, being good Catholics decide that they will only employ natural family planning. Another couple, having had several children in rapid succession, decide that they want to wait before having another. For physiological reasons, natural family planning is not appropriate for them. The husband decides to use a condom to prevent pregnancy. After two years, they decide the time is right to have another child, and they do. Which one is living in accordance with the principles of Christian marriage? Meyendorff's critical point is this: >>>In any case, it has never been the Church’s practice to give moral guidance by issuing standard formulas claiming universal validity on questions which actually require a personal act of conscience. There are forms of birth control which will be acceptable, and even unavoidable, for certain couples, while others will prefer avoiding them. This is particularly true of the “pill”.< << This is entirely consistent with the Orthodox perspective on moral theology, which stresses the freedom of the individual and the necessity of synergia between the person and the Holy Spirit in the process of theosis. We just have a totally different take on how one attains salvation, what constitutes sin, and how the Church should support its members in attaining perfection. The Western mindset says, "Rules are rules". Sin is breaking the rules. The East says some rules are absolute (Thou shalt not murder, and abortion is murder), but that others are amenable to mitigation in recognition of human frailty and the need to temper the rigor of law with mercy. Thus, we believe that marriage is an indissoluable bond that exists beyond the grave, and recognize only one sacramental marriage in a lifetime. But we also recognize that in a broken world, some marriages break down and should be dissolved, We recognize that one spouse frequently predeceases the other. We recognize that not everyone is made to live the remainder of his life in celibacy, and thus through the excercise of oikonomia, we allow for second, non-sacramental marriages, because, as Paul said, it is better to marry than burn. The Eastern way is not to lower the standard, but rather to exalt it as an ideal to which all should aspire. We recognize that not everyone can immediately live up to this ideal, whether it is in regard to fasting, or to marriage, or to contraception. And so we mitigate the rigor of the law to accommodate the needs of the individual person. I know this kind of dichotomy drives Western minds nuts. The ancient canons cover almost every aspect of human existence, and often prescribe impossible rigor and awesome penances. Some of the canons contradict each other, and others are totally irrelevant today. Yet there has never been an effort to systematize them or turn them into a consistent, objective "code" of Canon Law as the Roman Catholic Church has done. In fact, in Orthodox thought, canons are not laws at all, but merely precedents and guidelines for bishops, abbots and other in authority to consult in dealing with gritty, day-to-day pastoral issues. The Orthodox way is never to treat people as abstractions, never to impose "panaceas" without taking into consideration the specific facts in a specific case. Hence, the centrality of the Starets or Spiritual Father in helping people to make moral choices consistent with the Tradition of the Church. Thus, no matter how many proof texts you put forward, it still comes down to this: the Church has never spoken definiteively on this subject; there is no "received" teaching on it (I would argue that the widespread use of contraception by Roman Catholics indicates that the teaching has not been received there, either), and thus it remains in that gray area in which motivation has much more to do with the morality of an action than the mechanics by which the action is performed. >>>If you consider these examples of proof-texting then do you agree with Rowan Williams that arguments from the Scripture condemning homosexuality are proof-texing? You can’t have it both ways. Either words mean what they say when they are clear and unequivocal or they can mean whatever each reader wants them to mean. The fathers of our Faith for 19 centuries clearly condemned contraception and any effort to show otherwise is obfuscation of the obvious.<<< Proof texting is proof texting. Williams can make that case, and to some extent he is correct. As an Eastern Christian, I would never rely on Scripture alone as an authority on any issue. Scripture is part of Holy Tradition, and thus can only be interpreted within the matrix of Tradition, which is an holistic perspective of that which the Church does and has done. Or, as another Eastern Catholic theologian has put it, "Tradition is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ". Thus, it cannot be reduced to one souce or another, nor can it be based on mindless repetition of what somebody said centuries ago, unless that statement is put into context with the statements of all the other fonts of Tradition before and since. Inter alia, the link you posted, EASTERN ORTHODOXY AND CONTRACEPTION: CONTEMPORARY VERSUS TRADITIONAL VIEWS is written by a group of people out in Front Royal with whom I am well acquainted. Be aware that they do not reflect mainstream Orthodox thought, and that their authority, as compared to men such as Alexander Schmemann or John Meyendorff, is marginal in the extreme. The exegetical method they use is in fact alien to the Orthodox mind, which is not surprising, since many of the people involved with the group are actually Eastern Catholics (mainly Melkites and Ruthenians) who produce home schooling materials of a decidedly "uniate" bent.
Still not a single example of anyone before the 20th century who approved of the practice as compared to the citations I have provided from Christians from a variety of traditions who disapproved. (By the way, I could provide plenty of quotes from Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants from the 20th century who also disapproved.) Rather than answer my question, you evade. The head of your communion disagrees with you as have all of his predecessors. If you cannot give even one example of a prominent Christian who approved of the practice before 1900, just admit it.
Your position seems to be that if you can find someone who lived in the 20th century who can explain away clear condemnations from every other century of Christian history then you have answered the question I have posed. You have not. That is the exact same tactic that defenders of homosexual conduct use when faced with 19 centuries of condemnation of their conduct: avoid answering the question posed and misdirect away from it. Please, sir, answer my question.
>>>Still not a single example of anyone before the 20th century who approved of the practice as compared to the citations I have provided from Christians from a variety of traditions who disapproved.< << Because it is simply not relevant. And again, if you look at the citations you offered, most of them do not in fact deal with contraception per se. >>>Your position seems to be that if you can find someone who lived in the 20th century who can explain away clear condemnations from every other century of Christian history then you have answered the question I have posed. You have not. That is the exact same tactic that defenders of homosexual conduct use when faced with 19 centuries of condemnation of their conduct: avoid answering the question posed and misdirect away from it. Please, sir, answer my question.<<< The evidence for universal condemnation of homosexuality is far more explicit than that relating to contraception. Moreover, one can build a case against homosexuality based on the entire corpus of Tradition, including mysteriology. If you go back to Meyendorff's discussion of marriage and its purpose as understood by the Fathers (especially in the East), then it is plain that (a) sex is holy only within marriage and (b) that marriage must by definition involve a man and a woman. From the Orthodox perspective, end of discussion, full stop. Now, I will ask you to answer my question, concerning the couple who use NFP with the intention of never having children, vs. the couple who use artificial contraception to limit the number or the spacing of their children, but who do indeed accept that the bearing of children is a necessary concomitant of their role as co-creators in the image and likeness of God. Who is acting more in accord with the meaning of Christian marriage? Perhaps, while we are at it, do you accept the Orthodox propostion that procreation is not a rationale or purpose of Christian marriage (your friends in Front Royal are absolutely wrong on that point)? Because if you are locked into the position that procreation is a "purpose" of marriage, and not an "outcome" of marriage, then our respective positions cannot be reconciled.
Because it is simply not relevant. And again, if you look at the citations you offered, most of them do not in fact deal with contraception per se.
My friend, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
In reading this from the original blog posting:
>>>Mrs. Torode offers an update on the couple’s Web site: “While we still believe in the importance of family, we’re more mellow about encouraging others to have more children.” As Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, a professor of biblical studies at Eastern College, writes: “To suggest that birth control is evil or perverse because it undermines God’s sovereignty is to underestimate God’s sovereignty and reject our responsibility to serve him wisely.”<<< I can see how the influence of Orthodox would have "mellowed" the Torodes attitude: they have simply come to realize that this is an area in which the husband and wife are empowered by virtue of their Crowning in Marriage to make their own informed moral choices. They would have been told that as soon as they began their catechesis in preparation for Chrismation. Moreover, as time progressed and they grew in their new faith, they would have acquired a much better understanding of the foundations of Orthodox moral theology. As for Prof. van Leeuven, he expresses very well the Orthodox perspective of the relationship between divine grace and human will; his statement would be considered entirely mainstream at St. Vladimir's or Holy Cross Orthodox Seminaries.
>>>My friend, we will simply have to agree to disagree.<<< We do, I am afraid. We have divergent understandings of the sources of authority within the Church, and divergent Traditions with regard to our understanding of marriage, of sin, and of the path of redemption. It is a tragedy more than fifteen hundred years in the making. It is impossible for either of us to discard the burden of history, for we do not exist in a vacuum, but reside in the flowing tide of events and ideas. Yours has been shaped by the evolution of the Western theological Tradition, in all its varied forms; mine is shaped by the mind of the Christian East. We both want to come out at the same place--a world in which men and women live in accord with Christ's commandments. We just have very different ideas about how to get there. Which brings me to a story of Abba Dositheus, one of the Desert Fathers. A number of his disciples were arguing about what was the one true path to salvation. Overhearing them, Abba Dositheus drew a wagon wheel in the sand. "My children, we are all living in the world, which is like the rim of the wheel. We are all seeking a path to salvation, that is to say, Christ, who sits at the hub of the wheel. The spokes of the wheel are the different paths that we are taking. Note well, children, that if we remain focused on our goal, and move down the spokes towards the hub, we are drawing closer not only to Christ, Who sits at the center of all, but also to each other".
I am a bit confused by the exchange between GL and Stuart Koehl. I understood GL to be asking SK for a source from a specific time period. He was not asking for SK’s opinion on its relevance or to agree with his position on church fathers and their authority, nor was he asking for an evaluation of the relevance of the sources he cited.
Am I confused or have these two respondents been talking past each other?
Kamilla
>>>Am I confused or have these two respondents been talking past each other?<<< Not entirely, but we are arguing from different premises. GL, without actually examining his fundamental premises about the purpose of marriage, has postulated that because no early Christian source has spoken in favor of contraception, while many have issued statements that may be construed to oppose it, that contraception is therefore wrong. I am arguing from first principles about the purpose of marriage, and from there going into the issue of contraception from the perspective of the Eastern Churches, which have some fundamentally different ways of dealing with sin and redemption issues--more of a "medicinal" than a "legal" model. For that reason, I refuse to be drawn. It matters not in the least that no Father ever came out and said, "I think the pill is OK", for in fact, the issue did not come up in their time. The Fathers were not abstract theologians, they were pastors, and they dealt with issues of immediate pastoral concern to them and their flocks. They understood full well the difficulty of leading a blameless Christian life, but not being constrained by a legalistic model of sin, they were able to see their role more as that of physician than of judge. Let me use an analogous example--remarriage. The Western Christian Tradition saw marriage as an indissoluable life contract, and therefore did not (and does not) allow remarriage after divorce if one of the partners still lives. Once that partner is dead, however, the survivor is free to remarry "sacramentally". In fact, he is allowed an infinite number of "sacramental" marriages, as long as there is no suriviving spouse from a previous marriage. The East, on the other hand, sees marriage as an eternal sacrament between one man and one woman that is not dissolved by death. The ideal, from the Eastern Christian perspective, is one sacramental marriage in a lifetime. If one is widowed or divorced, one should remain celibate for the remainder of one's life. This, I think you will agree, is a hard teaching--but one consistent both with the concept of "sacrament" and of the indissoluability of marriage. But rigorous, rigid, legalistic enforcement of that rule would result in great hardship to many of the faithful, because celibacy is a personal callling, not something to be imposed on an unwilling person. "It is better to marry than to burn", said St. Paul, and the Church took that advice to heed. In consideration of human frailty, and with the salvation of souls foremost in its mind, the Church does allow the remarriage of widows, and allows remarriage of the innocent party in the case of divorce (which in turn is recognized only for a handful of causes, such as abandonment, brutality, abuse and life imprisonment). However, these marriages are not considered "sacramental", but are merely called "remarriages"--life contracts between the parties that are granted through a somber and highly penitential rite. Morover, the Church places strict limits on the number of remarriages it allows. Second marriages are almost always permitted; third marriages are barely tolerated; and fourth marriages are prohibited. As can be seen, this approach presents an apparent dichotomy, indeed, a contradiction between the indissoluability of marriage and the concession of remarriage. But the compromise in fact protects the integrity of the sacrament while taking cognizance of human needs. Which is worse--for the Church to regularize second marriages, or for people to fall into the greater sin of fornication or adultery? The Church is granted the power to bind and loose, and this power is exercised through the bishop's oikonomia. It is interesting that the Roman Catholic Church, too, has found that a purely legalistic approach to divorce is pastorally unworkable. In the past, it ignored the problem, and people responded by "living in sin". Many, in fact, ceased to be active members of the Church. Rigid enforcement of the law was thus causing the loss of souls, a contradiction of the Church's commission to bring all people to Christ. Recognizing the problem in the latter half of the 20th century, the Roman Church sought a means of both upholding the law and allowing for the pastoral needs of its people. It found the answer in the "Decree of Nullity"--a finding that no marriage actually existed, thus freeing both partners to remarry in the Church. The problem with this approach, however, is the transparency of the figleaf: with more and more nullifications being granted for the most spurious of reasons, a degree of cynicism now surrounds the process and the people lose respect for the Church. Not for nothing is anullment called "Catholic divorce". Moreover, the process does not discriminate between the innocent and the guilty parties in the case, and thus is an abdication rather than affirmation of oikonomia. There is nothing penitential concerning remarriage after an anullment--the bride can have the same white dress, the same sacramental prayers are read, and a mockery is made of the ideal of indisoluability. Viewed from that perspective, what makes more sense--to try to impose a rigid legalism on a difficult and highly subjective matter? Or to uphold the principle involved while openly recognizing that people fall short and should strive harder?
Kamilla,
I have to side with GL on this one. Reading other posts, I have judged that Stuart Koehl has a habit of cavalierly dismissing evidence which doesn’t support his views. GL was unprepared for this habit, and so vainly tried to pin him down.
Hi DGP,
I don’t know if Stuart Koehl is so much cavalierly dismissing as refusing to engage. While his posts are enormously informative, I find his tone, [“GL, without actually examining his fundamental premises”] off-putting (sp?). Instead of engaging GL on his own terms, Koehl consistently reframes the discussion in a way that he seems to find more congenial. It seems I have confirmation from you and from Koehl that I was not misreading the exchange.
Sadly, I find this frequently the case in discussions with Orthodox folk. There is a paradigm disconnect between East and West which makes rational discussion difficult, to say the least.
Kamilla
Stuart,
>> Now, I will ask you to answer my question, concerning the couple who use NFP with the intention of never having children, vs. the couple who use artificial contraception to limit the number or the spacing of their children, but who do indeed accept that the bearing of children is a necessary concomitant of their role as co-creators in the image and likeness of God. Who is acting more in accord with the meaning of Christian marriage? << From discussions I've had with my Catholic friends, here are the answers I think they would propose: 1) The couple using NFP with the intention of never having children is sinning because they have intentionally closed themselves off to one of God's primary goods of marriage ("Purposes" might also be used instead of "goods," I think, but I couldn't make the fine theological distinctions here). 2) The couple using birth control to help space out children is also sinning, but for a different reason. Their intentions are good, but one cannot intentionally sunder the procreative part of intercourse from the rest of it. Contrary to your earlier post, their intentions toward their fertility do matter. And, for fun, here is another example. (3) The wife of another couple suffers from severe bipolar mood swings. Taking birth control helps stabilize her cycles/ hormones, allowing her to function more healthily. She and her husband do not sin in intercourse if they use the medication out of necessity, because of the law of double effect. Their intention is to improve the mother's health, not to affect her fertility. From this, I believe that there is a distinction in what one's intentions are, similarly to abortion. The intention of saving an infant a life of pain and trouble do not justify aborting him, no matter how short and painful the life would be. However, the intention of saving the life of the mother is sufficient for aborting even a perfectly healthy infant. I stand open to correction on this by anyone who is more in touch with Catholic doctrine than I. But I think this is a reasonable position, even as a Protestant.
>>>Instead of engaging GL on his own terms, Koehl consistently reframes the discussion in a way that he seems to find more congenial. < << What you mean is I am true and consistent to the theological tradition to which I belong, whose fundamental premises are different from those with which you are familiar. I am not refusing to engage, I simply am saying that from the perspective of my Tradition, GLs line of reasoning makes no sense. I graciously conceded that there are no Fathers who endorse contraception. Conversely, there is no consensus patriae categorically opposed to it for the basic reason I cited--the Fathers thought and acted pastorally, and this was not an issue for them (in part, because the technology in question did not exist). From the Orthodox perspective, the lack of patristic consensus, the lack of a definitive, received doctrine throws the question into that large grey area in which personal discernment and spiritual guidance have primacy. You can accept or reject that, but it is so fundamental to Orthodox moral theology that I cannot abandon it without abandoning Orthodoxy. Sorry. >>>Sadly, I find this frequently the case in discussions with Orthodox folk. There is a paradigm disconnect between East and West which makes rational discussion difficult, to say the least.<<< What you mean is we are strange and alien people who ought to act like good Western Protestant or Catholic Christians and argue on your terms. I put it to you, why don't you try to understand us for a change? You we understand all to well--you are the dominant culture, the dominant form of Christianity in this land. We grow up with all of your definitions and categories, your modes of thought, your issues and disputes. Orthodox and Eastern Christians living in the West wage a constant battle to maintain their own identities against the overwhelming tide of Western Christian culture, but it does mean that we must learn to understand your mode of discourse. You, on the other hand, have little or no knowledge of us or our Tradition. When you do think about us, you either consider us a bizzare form of Roman Catholic, or at best, a quaint museum piece of a Church totally irrelevant to the modern world. Truth is, though, you never really make any effort to learn about us or understand us, and that makes it easy to dismiss us. Yet, through my own experience with the ecumenical movement, I find that there are Western Christians who do want to learn, and with whom we can have a meeting of minds. All it takes is a willingness to be open to a new way of seeing things. Ten years of discussions with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have proven remarkably fruitful, with much learned on both sides. Rational discussion is eminently possible and indeed, essential. The first step of any rational discussion is a definition of terms. I try to do that--GL begs the question, as do most of you, since both Roman Catholics and Protestants start from the same Augustinian assumptions.
>>>1) The couple using NFP with the intention of never having children is sinning because they have intentionally closed themselves off to one of God’s primary goods of marriage (“Purposes” might also be used instead of “goods,” I think, but I couldn’t make the fine theological distinctions here).
2) The couple using birth control to help space out children is also sinning, but for a different reason. Their intentions are good, but one cannot intentionally sunder the procreative part of intercourse from the rest of it. Contrary to your earlier post, their intentions toward their fertility do matter.< << That pretty much sums up the official Roman Catholic position, but you will find that, due to the excessive emphasis given to the means of contraception, most people never give a thought to the vital question of motive. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic position is framed by the understanding of sin as a violation of an objective code of law, which in turn incurs both a spiritual and temporal penalty; it is a legalistic approach to the issue. The Eastern Christian perspective is very different. The Greek word for "sin" is "hamartia", a term from archery (of all things) that means "missing the mark"--a failure to live up to an ideal. The Eastern approach to sin is medicinal: sin is a sickness of the soul that requires spiritual medicine. What the West calls "penance" has as its basis the working off of a penalty or debt. But what look like penances in the Eastern Tradition are in fact medicine intended not only to heal the soul of its current malady, but prophylaxis (ha!) against future illnesses that builds up the strength of the soul and spirit. Within that context, there are whole ranges of hamartia. The East never adopted the construct of mortal and venial sin, but rather describes hamartia as consisting of sins (commited deliberately and with forethought); transgressions (commited unwittingly) and frailties (inherent in human nature). Each of these is addressed differently, and much more emphasis is placed upon intent than is the case in the West. Thus, a spiritual father looking at both examples, would say that the first couple is truly sinning, since through their voluntary act they intend to violate something fundamental--the fruits of the sacrament of marriage. On the other hand, the second couple would be guilty of frailty, since they want very much to live up to the ideal but find it impossible in their weakness to do so. The counseling a good spiritual father would give to the second couple would be intended to strengthen them spiritually to help them come closer to the mark in the future. >>>(3) The wife of another couple suffers from severe bipolar mood swings. Taking birth control helps stabilize her cycles/ hormones, allowing her to function more healthily. She and her husband do not sin in intercourse if they use the medication out of necessity, because of the law of double effect. Their intention is to improve the mother’s health, not to affect her fertility.< << Roman Catholic theologians would invoke the "law of double effect"; i.e., a sinful act commited as a biproduct of a virtuous act, which in turn negates the sin. The most common example invoked today is the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, which kills the fetus in the process of saving the mother, recognizing that the ectopic fetus could not survive to term in any case. An Eastern Christian theologian would call this a transgression. The difference between sin and transgression has been explained to me this way: Sin is when you throw a rock through a window. Transgression is when you accidentally break the window while playing catch. In either case, the window is broken, though. >>>The intention of saving an infant a life of pain and trouble do not justify aborting him, no matter how short and painful the life would be. However, the intention of saving the life of the mother is sufficient for aborting even a perfectly healthy infant.<<< From the Catholic perspective, double effect again. Both Catholic and Orthodox theologians would agree that in the latter case, the ultimate decision belongs to the woman and her husband.
Stuart Koehl wrote:
>>What you mean is I am true and consistent to the theological tradition to which I belong, whose fundamental premises are different from those with which you are familiar. I am not refusing to engage, I simply am saying that from the perspective of my Tradition, GLs line of reasoning makes no sense.< < No, what I mean is what I said. You again prove my point. and again: >>I put it to you, why don’t you try to understand us for a change? . . . . . << Now you are not only making unwarranted assumptions, you are whining. You know nothing of my understanding or Orthodoxy. While I readily admit my understanding is incomplete (it couldn't be otherwise for a westerner), I can assure you I have known for donkey's years that Orthodoxy is not, "a bizzare form of Roman Catholic, or at best, a quaint museum piece of a Church". Kamilla
>>>No, what I mean is what I said. You again prove my point.< << You don't understand what I am saying. I accept that it my fault. >>>Now you are not only making unwarranted assumptions, you are whining. You know nothing of my understanding or Orthodoxy. While I readily admit my understanding is incomplete (it couldn’t be otherwise for a westerner), I can assure you I have known for donkey’s years that Orthodoxy is not, “a bizzare form of Roman Catholic, or at best, a quaint museum piece of a Church”.<<< Forgive me. I concluded that after hearing you say that it is impossible to have a "rational discussion" with us. Unless you are confessing that you are the irrational party, I can only assume that you think we are irrational. In any case, if you knew much about Orthodoxy, you would not think that I was being evasive, even if you didn't agree with what I was saying. In fact, in my discussions with knowledgeable Roman Catholics, Anglicans and even Evangelicals, most of whom disagree with my positions, understand that I am arriving at them from an exegetical tradition that is venerable and internally consistent. It was an example of Pope John Paul II's greatness that he recognized the validity of that Tradition in its own right, and insisted, in his pastoral letter Orientale Lumen, that Latin Catholics learn about and begin to appreciate the richness of that Tradition and what it offers to the West. The Church, he said (echoing Yves Congar) has two lungs--one Western, the other Eastern--and it must learn to breathe again with both if it wishes to be whole.
Stuart,
I get enough of the insults at work. I don’t need them on blog discussions.
And please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth – I never said it was impossible to have a rational discussion. It is, however, impossible to have a rational discussion when you respond in the manner as above.
And now, you may have the last word if you wish,
Kamilla
>>>And now, you may have the last word if you wish,<<< Fine, I shall. Through your extended tirade, you never once bothered to address any of the issues pertinent to the discussion, but chose to make me the topic of discussion itself. I think that speaks reams, don't you? Here endeth the lesson.
I am a bit confused by the exchange between GL and Stuart Koehl. I understood GL to be asking SK for a source from a specific time period. He was not asking for SK’s opinion on its relevance or to agree with his position on church fathers and their authority, nor was he asking for an evaluation of the relevance of the sources he cited.
Am I confused or have these two respondents been talking past each other?
Yes we were, but because I was trying to get Stuart to answer a concrete question which, in essence, is a yes or no question: did any prominent Christain who died before 1900 ever defend the use of contraception? Stuart believes that the question is irrelevant. I believe it is highly relevant because if the answer is no then he has the burden of showing why we should reject an uniform and unbroken teaching of all Christendom prior to that date. Truth is not relative. If contraception was a sin for the first 1900 years of Christianity, it is still as sin. If it is not a sin now, it was never a sin. Either the entirety of Christianity was in error for 1900 years or those who say contraception is permissible now are in error.
Frankly, his arguments fail to persuade me. If he wants a cite to a more full orbed teaching on marriage which, at the same time and as an integral part of that teaching, condemns contraception, I would suggest Casti Connubii which, again, was a formal teaching of the head of the communion of which he is a part.
Having said that, brothers in Christ should not be casting aspersions at each other. I disagree with Stuart, but he is still my brother in Christ and I hope we can disagree in an agreeable manner and in love for one another.
>>>If contraception was a sin for the first 1900 years of Christianity, it is still as sin. If it is not a sin now, it was never a sin. Either the entirety of Christianity was in error for 1900 years or those who say contraception is permissible now are in error.<<< Let's get down to tacks, then. What is your definition of sin? Unless we agree on that, we aren't going to get much farther.
Let’s get down to tacks, then. What is your definition of sin? Unless we agree on that, we aren’t going to get much farther.
With all due respect, despite your never answering my question, I finally relented and provided you with a citation on a more full teaching on marriage. (Despite what you implied, I have given a great deal of thought as to what marriage is and my understanding of it is not limited to my belief that absent hard cases contraception is a sin. Indeed, I agree with much of what Father Meyendorff says but to the extent he taught that contraception was permissible (absent special circumstances) I disagree with him and adhere to the teaching of all Christians prior to the 20th century.)
Now, in reply to my responding to your Father Meyendorff’s quote with a cite to an encyclical on the same subject written by the former head of your own communion, instead of an answer to my question, you pose to me another question. I believe that you should answer my question before I am expected to answer any more of yours. Therefore, this will be my last reply to your posts on this particular thread until you give me the courtesy of an answer. If you can’t find any prominent Christian who died before 1900 who taught that contraception was permissible, just say so. If you can, please provide a cite.
I believe you are a very thoughtful man, but we cannot dialog if you keep evading my questions.
I conceded that I do not know of any patristic writing that condoned contraception per se. You must have missed that. I still insist that it is not relevant, since the Fathers also did not condemn contraception as we know it today, but were mainly concerned with the abortifactant methods available in their time. There are many things on which the Fathers did not write specifically, and so we are called upon not to blind imitation, but rather to conformity of our modes of thought to theirs; this is what separates Tradition from traditionalism. In responding to new situations, we rely upon the gift of the Holy Spirit which resides in all members of Christ’s Body through our Chrismation. In such cases, solutions emerge organically from within the Church, until a consensus emerges. Messy, but the results are usually received and internalized into the Tradition. If you read all of the statements made by the Fathers on issues such as marriage, divorce, remarriage, and so on, you would think that they imposed a severe and rigorous discipline upon their people. But you must remember the general principle–set the bar high, but do not impose legalistic measures on those who do not measure up.
Which is why I insist, along with Fr. Meyendorff and Archbishop Joseph (both whose stature you cannot deny) and Kyr Kallistos (whom I know personally and whose thoughts on the subject have indeed evolved since he was just plain Timothy Ware, newly converted member of the Orthodox Church) that no matter how many individual citations you find that appear to condemn contraception, in the absence of a consensus fidei no categorical prohibition can be imposed.
It is also why I believe that our discussion must begin with first principles, such as “What is sin?”
As to why I do not consider Casti Connubi as binding upon Eastern Catholics, the answer is simple: in innumberable documents the Holy See has insisted that the Eastern Catholics recover the fullness of their authentic Tradition, bringing our liturgy, spirituality, theology, doctrines and diciplines into conformance with those of our Orthodox bretheren. Nothing in those documents says, “Except when these contradict the techings and practices of the Roman Church”. Indeed, to make such a qualification would mock the very idea of restoring the authenticity of the Eastern Catholic Churches and merely confirm what many Orthodox suspect–that were are merely Roman Catholics with a diferent “rite”.
So, to begin again, we need to agree on defiitions of terms, beginning with, “What is sin?”, for if you are going to insist that contraception is always and without qualification a sin, I need to know what you mean.
I conceded that I do not know of any patristic writing that condoned contraception per se.
Thank you. We have no choice, I believe, but to disagree as to how one should understand the condemnations of contraception, but we can agree that, at a minimum, it was never explicitly condoned prior to 1900, at least as far as we are aware.
[I]f you are going to insist that contraception is always and without qualification a sin, I need to know what you mean.
I am not Catholic and I do not “insist that contraception is always and without qualification a sin.” I believe I have indicated elsewhere that I believe it may be permissible in certain hard cases (e.g., life of the potential mother, high probability of severely disabled or terminally-ill children, and maybe even extreme poverty). As I understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on NFP, NFP is not to be used indiscriminately, but only when a justifying purpose exists. I am not prepared to say that others may not use artificial contraceptives which are not abortifacents under circumstances which would under Catholic teaching justify use of NFP. I frankly believe that is a place for pastoral counseling and is outside my bailiwick.
What I believe is a sin is the indiscriminate use of contraception to limit one’s family size when no extreme hardship applies, that is the use of contraceptives by the vast majority of those of us in developed countries. Just as the hard cases of rape, incest and life of the mother do not justify abortion when they do not apply (and I don’t believe the first two do even when they do apply), the hard cases for contraception (whether themselves presenting sufficient justification for its use) are not justification for the use of contraception in circumstances when they are lacking.
So, for purposes of our discussion, lets eliminate the hard cases (where pastoral advice is in order) and say that what I am calling a sin is the use of contraception in the absence of extreme circumstances. In fact, uses beyond that may also be a sin, but I am willing to limit our discussion to the common justifications for its use: a desire to limit one’s family size in the absence of extremely hard circumstances.
By the way, if anyone else knows of an example of any prominent Christian who died before 1900 who wrote or taught that contraception was permissible, I would welcome a citation. It would be valuable to my research.
Thank you.
>>>Thank you. We have no choice, I believe, but to disagree as to how one should understand the condemnations of contraception, but we can agree that, at a minimum, it was never explicitly condoned prior to 1900, at least as far as we are aware.< << Confronted with this, one has to choose an approach. Is that which is not specifically forbidden permitted; is that which is not expressly permitted forbidden; or does one have to discern? Discernment is why Christ sent us the Paraclete and sealed us with the gift of the Holy Spirit (which is to say, the Spirit dwells within us); this is why we are not bound by law, according to St. Paul. This must be taken into account when mining the ancient Fathers on contemporary issues, for, as I said, they wrote in a specific time for a specific audience, and unless one understands the context in which they wrote, one can be drawn astray. You have cited a number of references that condemn various practices (most of which are not contraception as we understand it today), and insist that we must follow the Fathers explicitly. But if we do that, we must consider how the Fathers wrote in general. There are far more, and much more explicit, condemnations of things such as attending the theater, or sporting events. Been to a play or movie lately? There are canons prohibiting Christians from using Jewish dentists or doctors. What's the name of your dentist or physician? I am sure at the time they issued these prohibitions (some of which made it into the disciplinary canons of the Great Councils), they had a very good rationale. Today, not so much. Do you see my point? >>>I am not Catholic and I do not “insist that contraception is always and without qualification a sin.” I believe I have indicated elsewhere that I believe it may be permissible in certain hard cases (e.g., life of the potential mother, high probability of severely disabled or terminally-ill children, and maybe even extreme poverty).< << So you agree with the Orthodox position, but you have discerned a different line in the sand. >>>As I understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on NFP, NFP is not to be used indiscriminately, but only when a justifying purpose exists< << So then it is the motivation for limiting childbirth, and not necessarily the means that matters, right? >>>What I believe is a sin is the indiscriminate use of contraception to limit one’s family size when no extreme hardship applies< << Who gets to decide? You? The Pope? Me? The local bishop? At the end of the day, the only people who can make that decision are the husband and wife, hopefully with prayerful discernment and the advice of their spiritual father. >>>In fact, uses beyond that may also be a sin, but I am willing to limit our discussion to the common justifications for its use: a desire to limit one’s family size in the absence of extremely hard circumstances.<<< Before we go any further, please tell me how you define sin generally (not in relation to this specific issue). How you answer will influence how I have to respond to you.
Confronted with this, one has to choose an approach. Is that which is not specifically forbidden permitted; is that which is not expressly permitted forbidden; or does one have to discern?
And we disagree as to whether contraception is specifically forbidden. I believe it is and you believe it is not. I believe the Fathers of the Faith from all traditions agree with me and neither of us can locate anyone who died before 1900 who agrees with you. I believe it is a contortion of their clear condemnation to say otherwise and the heads of your own communion agree with my understanding of the history of the Church’s teaching that contraception was always condemned. They considered the arguments you posit in the 1960s and Pope Paul VI followed his predecessors by rejecting those arguments. Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI (to date) agree with Paul VI.
Who gets to decide? You? The Pope? Me? The local bishop? At the end of the day, the only people who can make that decision are the husband and wife, hopefully with prayerful discernment and the advice of their spiritual father.
What other disputed conducted would you use that approach for? Would you use it for abortion, homosexual activity, polygamy? Why is this individualistic approach valid in deciding if contraception is permissible but is not for other areas which you have condemned just as adamantly as I am contraception? If it is permissible, then it is permissible for all (at least to the extent it is permissible); if it is not permissible, then it is not permissible for all (at least to the extent it is not permissible). As I have said elsewhere, truth is objective and universal, not subjective and relative.
Your answer demonstrates the danger of your position. You are now neutered in your ability to confront anyone who takes the same approach as to conduct which you believe is objectively sinful but which they believe is a matter of individual choice. You cannot resort to tradition, because, like you, they can argue that you are taking clear statements out of context and misunderstanding unambiguous words. Like you, they can find facile arguments written in our own time which support their more liberal understanding. We can rely on our own reason and reexamine every issues every generation or we can believe that our predecessors in the Faith were at least as wise and atune to the Holy Spirit as we are and refuse to remove the ancient landmarks which they have set.
I have said enough on the subject and so with this post I exist this thread. It has been fun and I look forward to further discussions with you on future topics.
>>> There are forms of birth control which will be acceptable, and even unavoidable, for certain couples, while others will prefer avoiding them. This is particularly true of the “pill”. < << Father Meyendorff apparently holds that this is consistent with the ancient teaching of the Church. You say that contraception is not actually categorically rejected by the early Fathers, because it did not exist in the forms we now have it.
Your argument might be true, but Father Meyendorff is not making that argument. The pill is, or can be, an abortifacient, which is clearly and unarguably condemned by the Fathers of the Church. I assume that Meyendorff is simply unaware of the scientific facts, as the only alternative is a belief that murder is a matter of conscience to which the Church cannot categorically speak.
Also, your argument itself (as distinct from Meyendorff’s) seems slightly dubious, insofar as many different theologians down through the ages condemned Onan for, essentially, using the “withdrawal” method — that is, for refusing to allow procreation to occur, by a method that was not abortifacient.
I realize that one aspect of your argument is that they misunderstood the scientific implications, and the difference between the two acts. This may be the case. But the fact is that they generally did connect ending a pregnancy, and deliberately preventing it from taking place at all — in such a way as to suggest they considered these things distinct, but both wicked.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “consensus fidei.” Apparently it does not mean the universal condemnation of a set of acts and intentions by every Christian theologian from every stream of the Faith who addressed the subject in any form for nineteen hundred years of Church history. Could you please define your use of the term?
I realize that one aspect of your argument is that they misunderstood the scientific implications, and the difference between the two acts. This may be the case.< .i>
As you point out Firinnteine, the homocidal argument was only one of the basis for their condemnation, but not the only one and, unlike Stuart, it is not clear to me that even that argument was based on a misunderstanding of human reproduction or a mistaken belief that contraception equaled abortion. I believe that they were speaking in the same way C.S. Lewis spoke about denying future generations existence. Those who dismiss the condemnations of the early Fathers focus on this portion of their argument, however, and ignore the other points they made.
And while Stuart would reject Luther (I presume), his arguments were based on an entirely different premise and were tied closely to his reading of Scripture. Finally, Chrysostom called contraception “contemning the gifts of God” which appears to me to be saying that denying that a quiverful of chiidren is a blessing is to say that God was mistaken is so declaring. That has nothing to do with homocide or abortion.
Oops. Closing the italics.
Oops. Closing the italics.
The idea that it is OK to commit a sin as long non-sin is “the ideal to which one aspires” is absurd. If the Eastern Church really teaches that (which I doubt), it is teaching something absurd.
I hope this wasn’t rude, but hey, politeness is just an ideal to which I aspire.
Less sarcastically, I am curious to know how Eastern Church reconciles its teaching on post-death marriage with Mark 12:25 (and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke).
>>>And we disagree as to whether contraception is specifically forbidden. I believe it is and you believe it is not. I believe the Fathers of the Faith from all traditions agree with me and neither of us can locate anyone who died before 1900 who agrees with you. < << Nobody who wrote before 1900 could consider the situation that exists today. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of theologians before 1900 did not write about it at all, which reduces your categorical condemnation to an argument from silence. Since we are dealing here with an intensely private matter, it rightly would have been discussed privately, between a married couple and their spiritual father. Also, note the divergence, even in the West, between theory and practice--contraception in various forms was always practiced, just never mentioned. If Leon Podles is to be believed, the Church tended to look the other way, recognizing the pastoral difficulties of the situation. >>>What other disputed conducted would you use that approach for? Would you use it for abortion, homosexual activity, polygamy? Why is this individualistic approach valid in deciding if contraception is permissible but is not for other areas which you have condemned just as adamantly as I am contraception? <<< This is something of an integrist approach to sin, in addition to mixing apples and oranges. The differences are two-fold: first, in regard to the seriousness of the sin; second, in regard to the breadth and depth of the authorities arrayed against the practice. The Church has, from its inception, been universally opposed to abortion, with abortion equated unequivocally with murder. This is based upon scriptural evidence ("Even in your mother's womb, I knew you") which later was included in its liturgical texts ("You know the name of each, even from his mother's womb"). With regard to homosexuality, again, we have both explicit Scriptural and patristic testimony. The same goes for polygamy. These are plainly black and white situations. On the other hand, the picture with contraception is much murkier. You admit that it is permissible to limit family size in certain circumstances, but only using certain means. Thus, apparently, you do not see family per se as being sinful, only the means used to achieve it. That alone places it on a different plane from abortion, homosexuality, or polygamy, which are always wrong under all circumstances. The closest analogy I can find to contraception is the indissoluability of marriage. The Fathers are unanimous and emphatic in their belief that marriage is an indisoluable union between man and woman. Divorce is sinful. Remarriage, likewise, is sinful, whether after widowhood or divorce. That is the unambiguous testimony of the Fathers. However, neither the West nor the East follows their teaching in its fullness. In the West, the Catholic Church has maintained the indissoluability of marriage, but has defined marriage as a life partnership dissolved by death, and allows for an infinite number of sacramental marriages as long as there are no surviving parties to a previous marriage. The Latin view of indissoluability was abandoned by most, if not all, of the Protestant denominations, which allow for both divorce and unconstrained remarriage. Viewed against this, both Roman Catholics and Protestants have departed from a patristic Tradition far more emphatic than anything pertaining to contraception--but you have not made objection to this. The East's position on indissoluability remains consistent with that of the Fathers: marriage is an eternal sacrament between one man and one woman, that perdures in the divine kairos. There can be only one sacramental marriage in a lifetime. Divorce is inherently sinful, and remarriage under any circumstances is likewise inherently sinful. Yet, the Orthodox Church allows for both divorce and remarriage. How can these apparently contradictory positions be reconciled? In fact, they are not. Rather, they are held in dynamic tension. The ideal is upheld in its fullness, but the Church recognizes that man lives in a fallen creation, and being prone to sin and corruption, will fall short of the ideal. Rigor is thus tempered with mercy, without departing from the normative situation. The Church recognizes that marriages should be eternal, but also recognizes that they sometimes break down and cannot be repaired, so that for the good of all it should be dissolved. This is considered a sin, and an occasion for metanoia (Greek, literally, a "turning back", usually translated as repentence, but lacking any of the punitive aspects of the Latin root word). No such sin attaches itself to widowhood, thus it is not a moment for metanoia. But both the divorced and widowed are called upon to live up to the ideal of one sacramental marriage, and ideally, they would spend the remainder of their lives in celibacy. However, the Church recognizes that celibacy is a personal and heroic calling, that even monastics can find a heavy burden, and it will not impose celibacy on anyone. Recognizing that men and women are in fact sexual beings, that they are prey to loneliness and that they need emotional and sometimes financial support, it allows for non-sacramental remarriage (in divorce, only for the innocent party, and in any case, no more than twice) because the alternative is either to impose a psychological burden or to drive a person into a graver sin, such as adultery or fornication (which, in the West, was the usual recourse of the divorced or abandoned, especially women). The "Rite of Remarriage" is not a sacrament; it is merely an exercise of oikonomia, a condescension on the part of the Church towards human frailty. Remarriage is sinful, but it is a lesser sin. The rite of remarriage is thus penetential and somber in nature, lacking the joyous elements that characterize the sacramental marriage rite (the Crowns, the processions, the reception of Communion). In the case of contraception, the same general principle applies. The ideal is a marriage in which children come without any attempt to influence or manipulate their arrival. Any attempt to do so is a departure from the ideal, and thus a form of "hamartia"--a falling short of the mark. One might say that NFP is thus preferrable to artificial means, but both are hamartia, and it is the motivation for the action that determines whether it is in fact a sin or a transgression. But, as I noted earlier, whether you deliberately throw the ball through the window, or do it accidentally, the window got broken. Whether sin or transgression, the image and likeness of God is marred, and thus a cause for metanoia. Once you understand sin as failure to live up to an ideal, rather than as the breaking of an objective rule, the Eastern approach becomes eminently rational.
>>>The idea that it is OK to commit a sin as long non-sin is “the ideal to which one aspires” is absurd. If the Eastern Church really teaches that (which I doubt), it is teaching something absurd.
I hope this wasn’t rude, but hey, politeness is just an ideal to which I aspire.<<< No, it is not, if you define sin as hamartia (which is in fact the word Paul uses). Hamartia means precisely what I said it does--failure to hit the mark. It is a term the Greeks used in archery for a failure to hit the target. The Eastern understanding of sin is fundamentally medicinal, based in the idea of man being the image and likeness of God. Through the sin of Adam, man has become subject to death and corruption. which cause disordered passions that drive men to sin. Sinning mars the image and likeness within, and the purpose of Christian life is theosis, a sharing in the divine nature, which requires the image to be cleansed and restored. Our entire life in Christ is devoted to the restoration of that image, all the time recognizing that we sin constantly by word, thought and deed. Our object is to improve, to grow in Christ, to put on Christ and grow into the spiritual garment He gave us. Recognizing the inevitability of sin while living in a fallen world, the Church does not condemn outright those who fail to live up to certain aspects of the Christian ideal. It makes accommodations to human frailty as part of its stewardship (oikonomia), without compromising on the ideal itself. If theosis is a process that continues throughout life and beyond the grave, then the objective is to improve constantly, moving closer to Christ. Oikonomia allows for exceptions to the rule when its strict observance would drive one into more serious forms of hamartia that would more greatly impede theosis.
Okay, I’m breaking my word and posting again.
Nobody who wrote before 1900 could consider the situation that exists today. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of theologians before 1900 did not write about it at all, which reduces your categorical condemnation to an argument from silence.
Not hardly. The voices which did speak were very prominent Fathers of the Faith and they spoke loudly and clearly. Your argument is the one from silence, which you earlier admitted.
This is based upon scriptural evidence (“Even in your mother’s womb, I knew you”) which later was included in its liturgical texts (“You know the name of each, even from his mother’s womb”).
What about Jeremiah 1:5a – “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you . . . .” (emphasis added)?
Please give me a cite where polygamy is specifically and explicitly condemned for all Christians, laymen and clergy alike. I can infer it (which in fact I do), but then I do not require explicitness. You do.
What is your response to Archbishop Rowan Williams, who wrote:
In a church that accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts, or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures.
He obviously disagrees with you on the clarity of Scripture’s condemnation of homosexual acts. I can answer him based on historical Christian teaching. How can you answer him?
Stuart,
Your position simply is untenable. Permitting contraception was the seed from which all sorts of poison fruits have sprung and it has neutered those who accept it from being able to effectively defend against the spread of those fruits throughout society.
Stuart,
I am just a Methodist lay speaker who grew up as a Southern Baptist, so I am not sure I am tracking the language. Let me rephrase to see if I am tracking.
Sin is the act of being out of harmony with God and God’s creation. Would this work? My job is to explain this concepts to plain folk (pun intended) in Kansas, and the minute you say theosis, they start thinking about lunch.
Nobody who wrote before 1900 could consider the situation that exists today.
What precisely is the “situation that exists today” which those “who wrote before 1900 could [not] consider?
>>>Less sarcastically, I am curious to know how Eastern Church reconciles its teaching on post-death marriage with Mark 12:25 (and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke).<<< Meyendorff in fact has a whole chapter on that. Allow me to quote at length: In all three synoptic Gospels (Matt 22:23-32, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-37) repeat Jesus' attitude towards the "levirate". It is important to notice that the question is related to Christ's teaching on resurrection and immortality, which cancels worries about survival through posterity. When the Sadducees ("which say there is no resurrection") asked who, among the seven brothers who successively married the same woman, will have her to wife "in the resurrection", Jesus answers that "in the resurrection theyneither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven". This text is often understood to imply that marriage is only an earthly institution and that its reality is dissolved by death. Such an attitude prevailed in the Western Church, which never discouraged the remarriage of widowers and never limited the number of remarriages permitted to Christians. However, if this were the right understanding of Jesus' words, they would be in clear contradiction to the teaching of St. Paul and to the very consistent canonical practice of the Orthodox Church throughout the centuries. In the Christian understanding, marriage is absolutely unique and quite incompatible with the "levirate". Never would the Christian Church encourage a man to marry his brother's widow. in fact, as Clement of Alexandria already noted, "The Lord is not rejecting marriage, but ridding their minds of the expectation that in the resurrection there will be carnal desire" (Miscellanies III, 12, 87). Jesus' answer to the Sadducees is strictly limited by the meaning of their question. They rejected the Resurrection because they could not understand it otherwise than as a restoration of earthly human existence, which would include the Judaic understanding of marriage as procreation through sexual intercourse. In this, jesus says, "they err" because life in the Kingdom will be like that of the "angels". Jesus' answer is, therefore, nothing more than a denial of a naive and materialistic understanding of the Resurrection and it does not give any positive meaning to marriage. He speaks of the "levirate", and not Christian marriage, whose meaning is revealed--implicitly and explicitly--in other parts of the New Testament. ("Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective", pp.13-14).
The word translated “Before” in Jeremiah 1:5 is the Hebrew word transliterated as “Terem” and means “before, not yet, before that.”
>>>Stuart,
Your position simply is untenable. Permitting contraception was the seed from which all sorts of poison fruits have sprung and it has neutered those who accept it from being able to effectively defend against the spread of those fruits throughout society.<<< Condemn the Orthodox Church, then. I will not.
Condemn the Orthodox Church, then.
Nor will I:
We assure you that we remain close to you, above all in these recent days when you have taken the good step of publishing the encyclical Humanae Vitae. We are in total agreement with you, and wish you all God’s help to continue your mission in the world.
Telegram from Patriarch Athenagoras to Pope Paul VI, 9 August 1968, reprinted in Towards the Healing of Schism, ed. & trans. E.J. Stormon (1987), p. 197, quoted on Contraception:
Early Church Teaching, to which I believe I linked above.
>>>Sin is the act of being out of harmony with God and God’s creation. Would this work? <<< This is entirely satisfactory, though perhaps I would have resorted to terminology that refers more to the image and likeness of God (what esle would you expect from a Church that venerates icons?). The Eastern Churches believe that man is a psychosomatic entity, a trinity of body, soul and spirit. As God intended, the relationship among these elements should be spirit, soul, body. Due to Adam's fall, man became subject to death and corruption, man's awareness of which caused the rise of disordered passions; i.e., man put his bodily needs first in order to survive, which distorted the right order. This marred the image and likeness of God, which can only be restored through union to Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Acts which exalt the "flesh" over the soul and spirit cause further damage to the image and likeness within, that can only be repaired through metanoia, prayer, and asceticism: metanoia, so that we place ourselves in our proper relation to God; prayer that we may come closer to God, and asceticism, that we may become masters of our passions and ultimately, like God, become "impassible"--still, at peace, and open to the will of the Father.
I am jumping into an extended discussion, I see.
Stuart has said that there were no non-abortifacient methods of contraception before 1900, so that in essence the question is new. Certainly there were no diaphragms, no IUD’s, and maybe only the first primitive rubbers…. But there was coitus interruptus, and there were forms of intercourse that go under the general name of sodomy.
So these questions are inextricably linked — as is the question of the effect of the pill upon social mores in general. That, after all, was one of Paul VI’s great arguments, and in that regard he was prophetic, and deserves apologies from many quarters, including from the theologians who were around at the time. I disagree with you, Stuart, about the non-effect of the Pill — that simply flies in the face of the history of the last several decades. Dr. John Rock, who invented the damned thing, declared that it was the single most socially revolutionary invention of the century, and in this, though in nothing else, I am inclined to agree with him, and would put it to my Christian brothers: How can a device which inevitably will be made available to all, and which will therefore inevitably, given the fallenness of humanity, tempt millions into mortal sin, and which will also, and inevitably, help to destroy the family, be blessed by God? To see that the Pill MUST have a revolutionary effect (and by the Pill I understand also other contraceptive devices of similar nature), just imagine how many things must necessarily change, and almost overnight, if birth control were to disappear. People predicate all kinds of decisions on that failsafe.
>>>Condemn the Orthodox Church, then.
Nor will I:
We assure you that we remain close to you, above all in these recent days when you have taken the good step of publishing the encyclical Humanae Vitae. We are in total agreement with you, and wish you all God’s help to continue your mission in the world.
Telegram from Patriarch Athenagoras to Pope Paul VI, 9 August 1968, reprinted in Towards the Healing of Schism, ed. & trans. E.J. Stormon (1987), p. 197, quoted on Contraception: Early Church Teaching, to which I believe I linked above.< << Your mistake, of course, is in believing that the Ecumenical Patriarch is nothing more (or less) than the Orthodox Pope. But that is not the case: the Patriarch is first among equals within the Orthodox communion, and he has no power to promulgate doctrine ex Cathedra. As Meyendorff noted, Humane vitae had many good points, particularly regarding the sanctity of human life. But its approach to contraception was not consistent with Orthodox moral theology or pastoral practice, which is why there is no consensus behind it in the Orthodox Church. As Meyendorff also noted, individual hierarchs have made statements almost identical to Humanae vitae (in this, he was no doubt referring to Patriarch Athenegoras), but as no consensus exists within the Orthodox Church, and as it is one of those areas that requires a personal act of conscience on the part of the believer, the Orthodox Church has not and will not make a categorical statement on the matter. With regard to your earlier post: >>>Permitting contraception was the seed from which all sorts of poison fruits have sprung and it has neutered those who accept it from being able to effectively defend against the spread of those fruits throughout society.<<< Reductionism of this sort does not take into account the full complexity of human society, and is also ahistorical. The social maladies you identify as rampant today were also rampant in various periods of history (care to compare the morality of 18th century London with that of 20th century New York?) long before contraception was widely used and during a period when its condemnation was widespead and official. Too often I get the impression that "blame contraception" is a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
>>>Also, your argument itself (as distinct from Meyendorff’s) seems slightly dubious, insofar as many different theologians down through the ages condemned Onan for, essentially, using the “withdrawal” method — that is, for refusing to allow procreation to occur, by a method that was not abortifacient.<<< Surely you must realize that the story of Onan is not about birth control, but about the Levirate, the obligation of a man to marry his brother's widow and have children by her, so that his brother's line will not die out. Onan refuses to take up his responsibility, because if his brother's line dies, he will have a greater share of the family wealth. Hence, God smites him down. But, as Meyendorff has noted, the Levirate is completely incompatible with the Christian understanding of marriage, I fail to see the relevance it has here.
Your mistake, of course, is in believing that the Ecumenical Patriarch is nothing more (or less) than the Orthodox Pope. But that is not the case: the Patriarch is first among equals within the Orthodox communion, and he has no power to promulgate doctrine ex Cathedra.
No, I understand that Orthodox Christians can and do disagree with the Ecumenical Patriarch. In all fairness, however, you have presented Father Meyendorff as if he speaks for all of Orthodoxy. And, of course, he does not. That fact is that Orthodox Christians are split on this so it is unfair of you to accuse me of “[c]ondemn[ing] the Orthodox Church” when, in fact, the Orthodox Church as an entity has not spoken with an united voice permitting the practice and when many within that communion still condemn it. My quotation from the late Ecumenical Patriarch was just to prove that point. In any event, my criticism is not intended to rise to the level of condemnation, only disagreement.
Surely you must realize that the story of Onan is not about birth control, but about the Levirate.
Not everyone agrees with you, including the prominent Christians throughout the ages who have cited his actions as a Biblical example of God’s reaction to an act of contraception. See, for example, St. Jerome:
But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).
I’ll leave off the numerous Protestants who cited Onan’s example as I doubt you would accept them as reliable sources. There are, in fact, problems with your argument as to what the story of Onan is about, but I do not deny that others have drawn the same conclusion. The point is that Jerome used it specifically to condemn “sexual intercourse [which was not] for the procreation of children.”
>>>Dr. John Rock, who invented the damned thing, declared that it was the single most socially revolutionary invention of the century, and in this, though in nothing else, I am inclined to agree with him, and would put it to my Christian brothers: How can a device which inevitably will be made available to all, and which will therefore inevitably, given the fallenness of humanity, tempt millions into mortal sin, and which will also, and inevitably, help to destroy the family, be blessed by God? <<< Tony, Nobody, not I nor Fr. Meyendorff, nor Archbishop Joseph said it was "blessed by God". Technology is morally neutral--it is the use to which we put technology that determines whether it is good or evil, and that, in turn, is a function of human free will. If we want to look at what tempts millions into "mortal sin", then I think the answer is "libido", not the pill. Aside from the fact that sexual license has ebbed and flowed throughout history, long before the pill, one must note that the factors that are in play today arose before the pill, and are principally philosophical and ideological. The difference between today and other periods of sexual license is that today the elites (social, intellectual, political) have for reasons philosophical and ideological, signed on to a program of radical individualism and the deconstruction of the family is the key to their agenda. In the past, the elites were at least invested enough in social order to give lip service to conventional morality. Today's elites are fundamentally nihilist and antinomian, which means that they use their influence to undermine rather than reinforce social bonds--much in the way that French aristocrats in the 1780s flocked to Beauharnais' plays that effectively destroyed the social structure on which the aristocracy rested. Moreover, the trend towards smaller families may be made easier by the pill, but it existed long before the pill was invented. Famly sizes began decreasing with the rise of urbanization and the bourgoisie, the decline in infant mortality, and the rise of machine-based industry. The trends can be seen going back to the 17th century in some places, and it continues to this day. And people knew very well how to limit the number of children they had by means other than marrying late and avoiding intercourse (not very effective absent a profound understanding of the human menstrual cycle). The fertility collapse we see today in Europe, Japan, and to a lesser extent here, is a symptom of a deeper underlying malady which the pill may have facilitated but did not cause. We are seeing the total demoralization of a culture and a social pessimism that has its roots in the two World Wars and the severe social dislocation these caused. People who do not believe they have much of a future do not have children, and focus all their attention on fulfilling their transient passions. "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die". We see this phenomenon at various points in history--in late antiquity and in the 14th century at the time of the Black Death, for instance. Either a society pulls out of its black funk, or it dies. You can't force people to be fruitful and multiply, even by bribing them into having children. Play a mental game with me, for a moment. Suppose that tomorrow you could make the pill and all other artificial contraceptives disappear. Do you suppose it would change anything at all, absent a prior moral regeneration? It isn't the pill, it is an absence of metanoia that is to blame. Rather than focusing on an extrinsic element, it would be better to focus on moral renewal through a more profound understanding of the meaning and purpose of Christian marriage--and indeed, a more muscular Christianity generally. Unless you have that, getting rid of the pill will do no more than roll us back to the good old days of Restoration England, or perhaps the Regency, which I submit were just as lewd, just as promiscuous and just as debauched as our society today.
>Play a mental game with me, for a moment. Suppose that tomorrow you could make the pill and all other artificial contraceptives disappear. Do you suppose it would change anything at all, absent a prior moral regeneration?
Consider if we could make all atomic and nuclear weapons disappear. Do you suppose it would bring back 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Perhaps the damage it has clearly done will not be so easily undone. Easier to destroy than build.
>>>Consider if we could make all atomic and nuclear weapons disappear. Do you suppose it would bring back 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki?< << Funny you should ask. As a military analyst, I've done that one several times over. The short answer is abolishing nuclear weapons makes the world safe for conventional war. Man likes to fight. It takes a powerful deterrent to keep him from doing it (or at least, keeping him from going all out. Man likes sex, and he's been fornicating his way across the centuries without any concern whatsoever for the procreational consequences. In fact, a lot of the teenage girls engaging in sex deliberately eschew contraceptives of any sort--they want those babies, it makes them feel loved and mature. More evidence that the underlying problem is bigger than, and predates, the pill. >>>Perhaps the damage it has clearly done will not be so easily undone. Easier to destroy than build.<<< No doubt. But the analogy is poor. Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives than they claimed, and the demonstrable horror of the bomb probably prevented a major European war for more than 45 years. In any case, I suggest that everybody play the mental game I suggested. Or better yet, roll back the clock to the mid-1950s, before the pill has rolled out, and tell me whether, taking into account all of the social forces in play at the time, whether or not very much would have changed.
On second thought, maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki are good analogies after all. Consider that what we faced in August 1945 was a choice between bad options–an invasion of Japan, a blockade of Japan, conventional firebombing of Japan, and nuclear bombing of Japan. All of these options would involve the loss of both American and Japanese lives, including very large numbers of innocent civilians (killed in the crossfire of an invasion, starved in the blockade, incinerated in the firebombing or the nuclear bombing. From a moral standpoint, all of these options were reprehensible (and sinful, from an Orthodox perspective). So which one to pick, when confronted with such a choice? The option that has the highest chance of ending the war with the least loss of life. And, regardless of how one cuts it, after sixty years of analysis, the atomic bombings still hold up as the one option that could end the war quickly–and did.
Well, in life, we constantly face a range of morally onerous choices, in which we must choose not between sin and virtue, but between sin and sin. Whether it is contraception or remarriage, or any of innumerable other issues, we frequently have only bad choices before us. In regard to both remarriage and contraception, the Orthodox Church recognizes that for many, it really is a choice between one sin or another. To remarry is a sin; to seek sexual intimacy outside of marriage is also a sin–but a far worse one than allowing for a second marriage. From the Orthodox perspective, any attempt to limit or control the number or spacing of children, whether by means natural or artificial, is likewise a falling short of the mark, The Church therefore places the resolution of this dilemma squarly where it belongs–in the hands of the two people it most intimately affects. Why else are we given the gift of the Holy Spirit, if not to make such hard choices?
In a fallen world, evil can never be eliminated; it can only be redeemed, transfigured into something good. Contraception, approached responsibly within marriage, can for some people be the means by which an evil–the inability or unwillingness to bear as many children as possible–is redeemed through the love of Christian marriage and the conception of children who likewise will be loved, cherished and nurtured in a materially, psychologically and spiritually sound home.
Stuart & Tony,
I am somewhat between the two of you on the impact of the pill. Stuart is right that fertility rates fell throughout the 19th century. A quick look at census data shows a steady and consistent drop from one decades to the next from 1800 to 1940, with a temporary rebound in 1950 and 1960, and then a return to the historic trend. Abortion and contraception had to be a factor and, in fact, it was in part concern over this trend that enabled Anthony Comstock to successfully lobby for the act which bore his name (the enactment of which, as I have posted on another thread, was a huge mistake). In addition, divorce rates were also on the uptick well before the 1930 Lambeth Conference and it was argued by proponents of contraception that fewer children would relieve economic pressures which they believed were contributing to more divorces. Allan Carson has written quite a bit about these historic trends.
Therefore, permitting contraception was in fact the result of already existing factors. To that extent, I agree with Stuart. However, it also appears clear that its acceptance exacerbated rather than ameliorated these trends and I believe it is hard to argue that the introduction of the pill was not a significant factor in the sexual revolution from which all sorts of sorrows have grown. Those who opposed permitting contraception predicted that its acceptance would make matters worse in precisely the way it did. So, I also agree with Tony. Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back.
As to the bomb analogy, all I will say is that I am glad we drop them. My father was training for the amphibious invasion of Japan when she surrendered. He went to his graving believing Truman saved his life. As I was born after the war, if he was right, Truman also enabled mine.
>>>n all fairness, however, you have presented Father Meyendorff as if he speaks for all of Orthodoxy. And, of course, he does not. < << Of course he does not. But he is widely respected both as a theologian and as a priest of great holiness (as, I add, was my other primary source, the Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Raya). >>>That fact is that Orthodox Christians are split on this so it is unfair of you to accuse me of “[c]ondemn[ing] the Orthodox Church” when, in fact, the Orthodox Church as an entity has not spoken with an united voice permitting the practice and when many within that communion still condemn it. < << Because the Orthodox Church is split on the matter, it falls into the realm of oikonomia, and is governed by the overall pastoral approach of the Orthodox Church. >>>In any event, my criticism is not intended to rise to the level of condemnation, only disagreement.< << Within Orthodoxy, agreement is required only in those things which are considered integral elements of Tradition, which means that they have been received and accepted by the Body of Christ. In everything else, theologumena are permitted as long as they do not contradict Tradition or are put forward as such. >>>Not everyone agrees with you, including the prominent Christians throughout the ages who have cited his actions as a Biblical example of God’s reaction to an act of contraception. See, for example, St. Jerome:
But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).< << Since Jerome believed that sex was sinful in any circumstance, and only tolerated marriage as a means of legitimizing sex through procreation, and since Jerome also believed that virginity was the only really acceptable state for a Christian, we would have to say that Jerome is even further out on a limb than his contemporary Augustine. >>>The point is that Jerome used it specifically to condemn “sexual intercourse [which was not] for the procreation of children.”< << QED, and see Meyendorff's comments concerning attitudes towards sex among the Latin Fathers. >>>There are, in fact, problems with your argument as to what the story of Onan is about, but I do not deny that others have drawn the same conclusion.<<< It's not my interpretation. I would not be so bold as to venture an exegesis independent of the Fathers.
>>>However, it also appears clear that its acceptance exacerbated rather than ameliorated these trends and I believe it is hard to argue that the introduction of the pill was not a significant factor in the sexual revolution from which all sorts of sorrows have grown. <<< Partially, I agree. The introduction of the pill accelerated trends already in motion. But the train had left the station in any case, and suppressing the pill would not, in my estimation, have significantly impeded the moral decline of the last fifty years, which as I said, was fueled by a philosophical and ideological agenda driven by elite opinion. Only the emergence of a powerful countervailing power during the period from the end of World War II to 1968 could have altered events. The Church was the natural focal point for such resistance, but sadly, the Church chose that very moment (at Vatican II) to reach an accommodation with modernity at the very moment that modernity was moving into post-modernism and the rejection of all metanarratives. Therefore, I believe that, pill or no pill, we would be pretty much where we are today, because it isn't the pill, its a constant diet of relativism, deconstructionism, multiculturalism and feminism that are the source of our discontents. The pill is only a tool for the agenda; in its absence, there were plenty of substitutes. For that reason, I think much stronger emphasis on the sacramental meaning of marriage, on the integrity of marriage, and the value of chastity within marriage would have done a lot more to stem the tide than simply outlawing the pill. If the necessary moral foundation was in place, then sex outside of marriage would be stigmatized; divorce would be discouraged, and contraception would be used responsibly within marriage by those who discern its necessity for them.
Stuart,
I enjoy reading your comments, always well-thought out and well-informed. That said, I think you have a rotten client to defend, and that’s causing you to bring forth as evidence some things that don’t really qualify.
1. The amateur historians on this blog are well aware that there have been other periods of debauchery and promiscuity. You mention 18th century London, and I might mention Rome in the days of Juvenal. But notice: you said 18th century London, not England; and I said Rome in the days of Juvenal, not Milan or Rimini. What some apologists for modern hedonism do is to extrapolate for an entire culture the sexual morality of a very small portion of it — and this extrapolation is particularly suspect when we’re talking about a pre-modern culture, where urban and rural mores can be sharply distinct. In any case, though it is true that the sexual revolution really began before World War II (as Allan Carlson points out), still, if you return even to the early sixties, you are in an age when people expect to marry, and when a small majority of women and a large minority of men will go to the altar with their virginity intact. The Pill did not cause the sexual revolution; it simply threw down the last and most imposing barrier. If you like, it was the double pneumonia that kills somebody dying of liver cancer.
2. Or maybe even that last analogy doesn’t adequately assess the damage the Pill has wrought. Without the Pill, the worst of the sexual revolution has no traction; without the Pill, feminism stalls and sputters; without the Pill, families shrink, yes, but they remain above replacement level; without the Pill, prudence if not love for chastity will keep a great number of young people moderately clean. And now we have a society predicated upon the “choices” that the Pill seems to offer. It is a society of contraception — I have written this in an article for a semi-rival publication that shall remain nameless — and it has sent its roots so deep into everything that we do, that it will be as difficult to root it out as it was to root slavery out of the old South.
3. There are tools, and there are tools. Some tools improve what are natural functions. My legs are for locomotion, and so is the combustion engine, which allows me to get to Cleveland, should I ever have the desire to go there, with some greater facility and speed. My white blood cells are for killing invaders, and so is the antibiotic without which I (speaking personally now) would not have survived my sixteenth year, and even now would not survive more than a year or two. Such tools are in their conception quite good, and can be used for good purposes, for morally neutral purposes, or for evil.
Other tools must inevitably bring up the problem of evil; their use must be justified. A hammer is not one of these, even though I can kill someone with it; but a revolver is. The purpose of a revolver is to kill a man, or disable him. Now there are circumstances in which it is morally permissible, or even an act of courage and charity, to kill. But it is the circumstance, not the thing itself, that makes the revolver morally permissible. And the circumstance has to be grave: in the case of the revolver, I may use it to save myself or someone else from the violence of a deadly attacker. Such tools can also be used for good, for morally neutral purposes (target shooting, I suppose), or for evil.
Other tools cannot be used without the taint of evil. Here we should distinguish between birth control and legitimate medicine. A man will wear a prosthesis to help bring back some of the function of a healthy leg. But there is nothing wrong with the reproductive organs of people who practice birth control — in fact, the problem is precisely that there is nothing wrong with them! The aim of birth control is not to repair an injury, or to enhance a natural function of the body, but to stifle that function, even at the small but definite risk of bodily injury. Nor is there any attacker against which the user is defending himself. Put it this way: if I walk into a slum, deliberately parading jewels and bankrolls, and then pull a revolver on the first kid who tries to filch them, I am to blame; that is not a justifiable use of force. Now if for some grave reason I do not want a child, or cannot risk having my wife become pregnant, then I have the means available for not having a child. I do not need the instrument of the Pill. In fact, if it is a matter of desperation — if a pregnancy might result in my wife’s death — then I suddenly have an additional reason to avoid the Pill, which is no sure thing. In other words, morally justifiable use of an instrument that by its nature causes harm cannot involve my active will, for my own benefit, to place myself in the position wherein the use of the instrument will be necessary, or (in the case of the Pill) will seem necessary.
4. Legalism can mean several things — and we should be careful not to toss the word out too hastily:
First, Pharisee Prime: the belief that one’s ritual adherence to certain laws will bring about one’s salvation. Such legalism is the norm for world religions, not the exception. Rome was a flagrant case of it. No true Christian can hold it.
Second, Pharisee Complex: the belief that righteousness consists in the dogged obedience of certain laws, good in themselves, but madly applied; tithing mint and cumin, for instance, while leaving the heart as covetous as ever. No true Christian can hold this variety, either.
Third, Moral Precisianism: the belief that good and evil actions can be identified objectively, even though that will involve making distinctions upon distinctions; and that people ought to be informed by the results of moral philosophy and act accordingly. Thomas Aquinas fits here — as do a host of Christian saints and martyrs. Perhaps this variety should not be called legalism at all, but a true reverence for the law as such.
Last, what some people call legalism is but a call to a high and irrefragable duty. So I construe the words of Jesus, who did not allow divorce: “If a man put away his woman — I am not talking about the case of his partner in fornication or other uncleanness — and marry another, he commits adultery.” That is not tithing mint and cumin; nor is it the examining of the livers of slain animals, to see if there is a black spot, and whether it is sinister or dexter. Nor is it an “ideal” to be admired as from afar — lay not that flattering unction to thy soul, O man. I know that not everybody here on this blog will agree with me on this — and I have very dear Christian friends who allow for divorce under grave circumstances. But I cannot read the words of Jesus in any way that makes sense, other than above. And I note that in Luke and Mark the apparent exception does not even appear.
Having returned from a trip away from home, I find a massive thread posted in my absence.
Dear Dr. Mills,
I hope my explanation and apology were satisfactory to you. You, like all the editors of Touchstone, are held in very high regard.
Dear Stuart,
Your interlocutors are right that you are not engaging their arguments, but ignoring or bypassing or even misrepresenting them — and that includes me.
E.g., I never said that comparison was not ever appropriate for analysis. What I pointed out is that your East-West comparisons are invariably invidious, based on cardboard stereotypes, unnecessary to make your case, and contrary to the spirit of this site. Please address the point I made, not the point you wish I had made instead.
The real problem is your repeated setting up and knocking down of the straw man of the allegedly legalistic Western Christian mind with a “one size fits all” Procrustean moral mentality, that is supposedly driven crazy by Eastern Orthodox oikonomia (and so woefully ignorant of all things Eastern as to suppose that the patriarch of Constantinople is an Eastern pope). You never prove it, you just always assert it. I guess that in the military, you learned how to set up and take potshots at stationary paper targets, and have simply transferred that skill over to blogging.
E.g., you assert of me here that “You simply believe that there is only one way for a couple to do this, and they have Hobson’s choice in the matter.” I believe nothing of the sort, and call on you to provide explicit evidence from my posts to prove your assertion. On the contrary, in my several posts here and in previous blogs on this topic, I have expressed reservations about the method of reasoning in Humane Vitae. The practice of oikonomia is one of the things I find most attractive about Eastern Orthodoxy in several areas, including this one. (It is one reason why I am inclined to go in that direction rather than Romeward if my current Anglican position finally becomes absolutely untenable.) But instead, you put me in a box of your own devising of the legalistic Westerner, and impute to me ideas I have never held or stated.
For the record, I’m somewhere between you and GL here. I am sympathetic to the Orthodox approach you outline of pastoral emphasis upon factors specific to each couple. (By the way, the Western churches do that too, though apparently you believe the contrary.) I also agree that many (not all) of the patristic citations against contraception actually apply to abortion because the two did not have clearly differentiated methods. But, when push comes to shove, such distinct patristic witness as exists is entirely against contraception. And there are moral absolutes that are not legalistic. E.g., it is wrong to commit idolatry or adultery or sexual perversion, to steal, to murder (as opposed to kill) to take the Lord’s name in vain. It is a legitimate question to be addressed as to whether to contracept falls into the same category. And, while I’m still pondering the matter, if push comes to shove at this point, I’m siding with GL here, who has presented much the better argument at all levels.
Lastly, you wrote:
“Finally, I wish to note that my experience over the course of a decade has demonstrated that most Christians, whether Eastern or Western, know precious little of their own particular Traditions . . . (let alone has said and taught over the centuries). So, I never take it for granted that people will have the least clue concerning something I say or write, but rather spell out as much as is needed to make the case plainly.”
The people posting to this sight are, generally speaking, not “most Christians,” not your average people in the pews. From following their personal asides, I gather that most of them have Ph.D.s or something very close to that. They are obviously very well read and thoughtful. While you presumably do not intend it, your approach comes off as patronizing and condescending (and tends to make for long-windedness as well). Might I suggest that you reverse your approach here, and assume instead that your audience here DOES have a reasonably informed understanding of what you’re talking about? In that case, you can then fill in the gaps as needed. I think it would be a much more constructive method than tacitly assuming that others here are clueless.
Once more, I want to stress that the positive sides of your many posts are often excellent and informative and make a valuable contribution. But you undermine it by repeatedly shooting off the negative anti-aircraft flak against the West.
Finally, to ask you a question on this topic itself, and more generally. You are an Eastern Rite Catholic, under the authority of the Roman see. On what grounds then do you reject the authority of that see on this (or any other) matter? Indeed, I find it puzzling as to how you can constantly criticize the West when you are not only under the authority of a Western see, but can only be such by rejecting the arguments of the Eastern Orthodox against papal authority and accepting instead the arguments produced by that supposedly legalistic Western mindset you so often contemn — unless you claim to produce arguments solely on your own authority, which would be very “Protestant” (in an unfairly stereotypical sense). I’m sure that you have a rationale here; I’d like to know what it is.
Having returned from a trip away from home, I find a massive thread posted in my absence.
Dear Dr. Mills,
I hope my explanation and apology were satisfactory to you. You, like all the editors of Touchstone, are held in very high regard.
Dear Stuart,
Your interlocutors are right that you are not engaging their arguments, but ignoring or bypassing or even misrepresenting them — and that includes me.
E.g., I never said that comparison was not ever appropriate for analysis. What I pointed out is that your East-West comparisons are invariably invidious, based on cardboard stereotypes, unnecessary to make your case, and contrary to the spirit of this site. Please address the point I made, not the point you wish I had made instead.
The real problem is your repeated setting up and knocking down of the straw man of the allegedly legalistic Western Christian mind with a “one size fits all” Procrustean moral mentality, that is supposedly driven crazy by Eastern Orthodox oikonomia (and so woefully ignorant of all things Eastern as to suppose that the patriarch of Constantinople is an Eastern pope). You never prove it, you just always assert it. I guess that in the military, you learned how to set up and take potshots at stationary paper targets, and have simply transferred that skill over to blogging.
E.g., you assert of me here that “You simply believe that there is only one way for a couple to do this, and they have Hobson’s choice in the matter.” I believe nothing of the sort, and call on you to provide explicit evidence from my posts to prove your assertion. On the contrary, in my several posts here and in previous blogs on this topic, I have expressed reservations about the method of reasoning in Humane Vitae. The practice of oikonomia is one of the things I find most attractive about Eastern Orthodoxy in several areas, including this one. (It is one reason why I am inclined to go in that direction rather than Romeward if my current Anglican position finally becomes absolutely untenable.) But instead, you put me in a box of your own devising of the legalistic Westerner, and impute to me ideas I have never held or stated.
For the record, I’m somewhere between you and GL here. I am sympathetic to the Orthodox approach you outline of pastoral emphasis upon factors specific to each couple. (By the way, the Western churches do that too, though apparently you believe the contrary.) I also agree that many (not all) of the patristic citations against contraception actually apply to abortion because the two did not have clearly differentiated methods. But, when push comes to shove, such distinct patristic witness as exists is entirely against contraception. And there are moral absolutes that are not legalistic. E.g., it is wrong to commit idolatry or adultery or sexual perversion, to steal, to murder (as opposed to kill) to take the Lord’s name in vain. It is a legitimate question to be addressed as to whether to contracept falls into the same category. And, while I’m still pondering the matter, if push comes to shove at this point, I’m siding with GL here, who has presented much the better argument at all levels.
Lastly, you wrote:
“Finally, I wish to note that my experience over the course of a decade has demonstrated that most Christians, whether Eastern or Western, know precious little of their own particular Traditions . . . (let alone has said and taught over the centuries). So, I never take it for granted that people will have the least clue concerning something I say or write, but rather spell out as much as is needed to make the case plainly.”
The people posting to this sight are, generally speaking, not “most Christians,” not your average people in the pews. From following their personal asides, I gather that most of them have Ph.D.s or something very close to that. They are obviously very well read and thoughtful. While you presumably do not intend it, your approach comes off as patronizing and condescending (and tends to make for long-windedness as well). Might I suggest that you reverse your approach here, and assume instead that your audience here DOES have a reasonably informed understanding of what you’re talking about? In that case, you can then fill in the gaps as needed. I think it would be a much more constructive method than tacitly assuming that others here are clueless.
Once more, I want to stress that the positive sides of your many posts are often excellent and informative and make a valuable contribution. But you undermine it by repeatedly shooting off the negative anti-aircraft flak against the West.
Finally, to ask you a question on this topic itself, and more generally. You are an Eastern Rite Catholic, under the authority of the Roman see. On what grounds then do you reject the authority of that see on this (or any other) matter? Indeed, I find it puzzling as to how you can constantly criticize the West when you are not only under the authority of a Western see, but can only be such by rejecting the arguments of the Eastern Orthodox against papal authority and accepting instead the arguments produced by that supposedly legalistic Western mindset you so often contemn — unless you claim to produce arguments solely on your own authority, which would be very “Protestant” (in an unfairly stereotypical sense). I’m sure that you have a rationale here; I’d like to know what it is.
Dear Tony,
Thanks for the compliment. I also find your posts to be thought provoking and always charitable. That contraception is a highly contentious issue is manifest by the length of this particular exchange. We may be reaching the point of diminishing returns, though, since I doubt I will sway you or those who agree with you, and I am pretty sure you will not change my mind.
That said, in practical terms, I don’t think we are actually all that far apart. The difference seems greater, mainly because we approach the matter from different theological and pastoral positions.
I agree with you that contraception is an objective evil. But I would go so far as to say all efforts to control or limit births are likewise objective evils from the Orthodox perspective. The ideal situation is a marriage continually open to the possibility of new life, consistent with man’s role as co-creator made in the image and likeness of God. All Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theologians would agree on that point.
But the fact is, in a broken world, responsible married couples trying to live in Christ often find their situation requires that childbearing be delayed or at least spaced out; some may find their physical, material or psychological condition does not allow them to have more than a few children.
In Orthodox theological terms, this would be considered hamartia, in that it falls short of the mark, but depending on the situation, it might not be a sin, but more of a frailty. Nonetheless it is an occasion for metanoia.
If this is the case, the best way to approach the problem would be reliance on natural family planning (especially if periods of continence were accompanied by prayer and fasting, thus combining several ascetic displines in one). This may work for some, but not for others, depending upon both physical and spiritual factors. A woman may not be able to predict reliably the timing of ovulation. Or one or both of the partners may not be far enough along on his spiritual pilgrimmage as to be able to maintain the discipline consistently. This is a matter for them to discuss with each other and their spiritual father. Paul notes that a husband or wife should not absent himself from the marital bed without the consent of his partner, and then only for a short time of prayer and reflection. Paul also notes that it is better to marry than to burn, and in an analogous fashion, if the continence required for natural family planning opens the other partner to the risk of fornication or adultery, it is clear that we have to balance not just good against evil, but varying degrees of evil. In cases such as this, the couple, after prayerful discernment, may conclude that artificial means work better for them. If possible, they should try to grow in soiritual maturity through asceticism to be able to transition to natural means. This, again, is a matter for the couple and their spiritual father, not something that can be subject to hard and fast rules. Only they can determine when–or if–the couple has reached this point (the same thing goes for the decision to have children in the first place).
In this, I think we are not so far apart in practice. I am sure that you do not think it is possible to outlaw artificial contraception (though I myself would have preferred that access be limited solely to married people), and I do not think that you would wish to cast out those Christians who presently are using it (which, by the way, does NOT include me–I have no personal interest in this fight). You know that true belief, let alone true behavior, cannot be coerced and so the transfiguration of the individual person–his theosis, as we would put it–must proceed through the upholding of an example and support for our weaker brothers and sisters. If we do this for fasting, if we do this for marriage, we can also do this for contraception within marriage. The principle is the same.
That, I suppose, underlines one of the fundamental differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic approaches, not just to contraception, but to a range of moral issues. The latter tend to issue blanket, unequivocal statements laying out black and white rules, which the people are expected to obey. If the people receive the teaching and comply, so much the better. But if they do not–and in the case of contraception, the overwhelming number have not–this causes a serious pastoral issue: without the concept of oikonomia (and dispensatio is not the same thing), it is not possible to mitigate the rule, which in turn requires the Church either to take a very hard line in enforcing it (i.e., turning people away from the Chalice), or to turn a blind eye to the problem, and thus create an air of cynicism that undermines Church authority on a far greater range of subjects. This is the case in the Roman Catholic Church regarding contraception: with approximately 90% of married Catholic using some form of contraception at least some of the time, there is not a priest or bishop in the entire Church who would dream of suddenly informing them that they are henceforth barred from communion until they repent and sin no more (that this has been the Catholic attitude for more than a century–long before the pill–is confirmed by Leon Podles, no liberal he). The same problem exists, in slightly different form, regarding remarriage. The Catholic Church absolutely bans remarriage after divorce if the other partner still lives. Yet, faced with large numbers of divorced Catholics wishing to remarry and to remain in communion with the Church, resort to decrees of nullity for increasingly specious reasons (especially in the United States) has caused even Catholics to recognize anullment as “Catholic divorce”. All attempts to tighten the screws have failed, because the pastoral implications are dire indeed (in Europe, for instance, few Catholics bother to get their marriages anulled; if divorced, they either do not remarry, but (as we use to put it) “live in sin”, or they do remarry and simply stop going to Church.
Faced with such dilemmas, which are real pastoral situations, application of the principal of oikonomia, whereby the normative standards are upheld but mitigated tends to avoid both the hypocrisy on the one hand, and the potential loss of souls on the other.
You comments on the various dimensions of Phariseeism are well taken, and much as I admire those Christians who are open to having as many children as God grants them, in a number of cases (fortunately few) I have seen these people exude an air of moral superiority over those who have chosen otherwise. There is very little of “God have mercy on me, a sinner!” in them. While their number is few, unfortunately, a number of them are stridently vocal in their condemnations of contraception (sometimes even natural methods), which reeks of sanctimony and has to be off-putting to those struggling with their consciences.
If we are to bear each other’s burdens, and sacrifice for the weaker bretheren, then a little more humility ought to accompany their admitted heroism, recognizing that one cannot force heroism on those who are not ready to accept it. Jesus says, “If you would be perfect. . .”, he does not force perfection upon us. And in his mercy, he recognizes that none of us are perfect, but sin constantly in all that we do.
>>>Third, Moral Precisianism: the belief that good and evil actions can be identified objectively, even though that will involve making distinctions upon distinctions; and that people ought to be informed by the results of moral philosophy and act accordingly. Thomas Aquinas fits here — as do a host of Christian saints and martyrs. Perhaps this variety should not be called legalism at all, but a true reverence for the law as such.< << On moral precisionism, it is the backbone of Orthodox moral theology. The job of the Church is to inform people of the Christian ideal, and to support them in attaining it. But again, the Church recognizes that each human being is a distinct person, with differing spiritual gifts, each of whom is involved in an individual spiritual pilgrimmage, the path of theosis. The pastoral duty of the Church, its stewardship of souls, requires that it tailor its discipline to meet the needs of each person. As the Anaphora of John Chrysostom puts it' "Therefore, O Master, make straight for our good the present way, according to the need of each. . " As Christ particularizes his grace in accordance with the needs and the gifts of each person, so the Church, which is granted the power to bind and loose on Earth, must tailor its own remedies according to the need of each. To me, moral precisionism is not legalism, but its very antithesis. Without moral precision, there can be no oikonomia, for one must understand clearly what is right and wrong, good and evil, in order to weigh the moral consequences of alternative actions and to choose the best among them. Without moral precision, all you have is a baseless relativism, which is not oikonomia, but its negation, for if oikonomia is very literally "stewardship", relativism is an abdication of stewardship, a manifestation of the sin of acedia. >>>Last, what some people call legalism is but a call to a high and irrefragable duty. So I construe the words of Jesus, who did not allow divorce: “If a man put away his woman — I am not talking about the case of his partner in fornication or other uncleanness — and marry another, he commits adultery.”<<< This is not what I call legalism. A call to a higher duty is just that, a call, which must be taken up voluntarily by each individual person. Legalism is mindless application of abstract rules upon flesh and blood human beings, an imposition of a higher moral duty upon those who may or may not be prepared for it. What I call legalism is the belief that the moral universe operates on the same principles as a man-made legal system: there are rules. Obey the rules, or incur a penalty. Because the rules are objective (in the sense of treating those to whom it applies as "objects"), they do not take into account the differing circumstances in each case, and in some cases, may in fact be counterproductive. Thus, with regard to marriage, the Roman Catholic approach gives those who divorce the choice of perpetual continence or "mortal sin" (a category lacking in Eastern Christian moral theology). Not surprising, then, that the only way out of the dilemma is through legal sleight of hand. So, too, with contraception--if permissable natural methods cannot or will not be used, then tough luck, chaps. To the vast majority of the faithful, this approach seems both hard and cruel--and thus is widely ignored. The eschaton cannot be forced. Mankind cannot be transfigured by fiat. Until the Second Coming, the transfiguration of man must occur one soul at a time, and an approach that does not recognize this fact has the unintended consequence of driving people away from Christ and into the hands of the Adversary.
>>>Your interlocutors are right that you are not engaging their arguments, but ignoring or bypassing or even misrepresenting them — and that includes me.< << Actually, I am not bypassing you, I am responding to your questions using methods and categories with which you are not familiar or do not agree. This is not unusual in East-West dialogue, which is why I asked GL to begin by defining terms. I think we might all be served by doing this, so that we know what we all mean when we use a specific mode of expression. Failure to do this can lead to dire situations, as, e.g., in the separation of the so-called Nestorians and Monophysites from the Orthodox Catholic Church over different forms of Christological expression that were substantially congruent and only superficially divergent. It took us 1500 years to figure out that the Nestorians were not nestorian, and that the Monophysites also believed that Christ is both God and man without confusion or admixture. We should be able to reconicile our positions on contraception in less time than that. >>>Finally, to ask you a question on this topic itself, and more generally. You are an Eastern Rite Catholic, under the authority of the Roman see. On what grounds then do you reject the authority of that see on this (or any other) matter? <<< This is a very good question, which too few people ask. Quite simply, the relationship between the Pope of Rome and the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome is different from that between the members of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. Each Eastern Catholic Church is considered "sui juris", meaning that each is a true autonomous Church with its own unique hierarchy, its own liturgical practices, its own spirituality, theology, doctrine and disciplines (cf. the Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches, Orienalium ecclesiarum; John Paul II's pastoral letter Orientale Lumen; the encyclical Ecclesia in America; and the 1996 Liturgical Instruction for the Eastern Catholic Churhes). For more than a century, the See of Rome, recognizing the anomalous situation of what were previously called the "Eastern rites", has called upon us to restore the fullness of our authentic Traditions (for there are several different Traditions represented among the Eastern Catholic Churches, aside from the Byzantine Tradition). A Tradition is an organic, holistic entity, and the development of a Tradition is like the development of a language--each proceeds in accordance with its own circumstances and peculiarities. Some languages have articles, others don't--it doesn't mean that one is better than the other. In centuries past, the Papacy acted on a principle called "praestantia ritus latini"--that the Latin rite (in the broad sense of the word, the entire Latin Tradition) is the fullest, most perfect expression of the entire Christian Tradition, and thus whenever it differs from another rite, the Latin rite has priority. That belief has been abandoned in principle by Orientalum ecclesiarum, which says that all particular Churches, regardless of rite, are equal and grace and dignity. Their respective rites are their by right, not dispensation, and they cannot be alienated from their spiritual patrimony. When the Pope says, "Restore the fullness of your Tradition", he cannot do so and also say, "Except where it diverges from Roman practice". To do so makes a mockery of the entire enterprise, and causes Orthodox claims that we are just "Roman Catholics in drag" to ring true. Now, the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church as expressed in Lumen Gentium admits that the Catholic Church is a communion of particular Churches in which the Pope is the center and focus of unity. For Roman Catholics, he also exercises patriarchical authority over them; i.e., he is ultimately directly responsible for establishing doctrine and discipline within the Latin Church. However, he does not exercise patriarchical authority over the Eastern Catholic Churches. Rather, each Eastern Catholic Church has its own head, whether a patriarch, major archbishop, or metropolitan. Each of these works in conjunction with his own synod of bishops, and they have the responsibility for maintaining the Tradition within their own Church. As we move more deeply into rediscovering our Tradition, the occasions on which we are going to disagree with the Roman Church's approach will grow. Over the 400 years of our existence, the effect of the praestantia ritus latini, as well as more subtle pressure resulting from the training of our priests in Latin seminaries, resulted in a process called latinization--the abandonment of liturgical, spiritual and theological elements of our Tradition in favor of imports from the Latin Tradition. This caused, as the Liturgical Instruction noted, a certain degree of spiritual dislocation. Thus, since Vatican II, de-latinization has been a high priority within the Eastern Catholic Churches, albeit one resisted by a substantial segment of the laity and even the clergy. But the Liturgical Instruction and other Vatican decrees are explicit--we are to bring our own liturgy, theology, spirituality, doctrines and disciplines into line with our counterpart Churches outside the Catholic communion. Because, ultimately, when communion is restored between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, our proper duty is to disappear, to go back whence we came. Most of us would do this gladly, I think, for unity is more important than our unique ecclesial identities. Pope John Paul II laid upon us Eastern Catholics the mission to serve as a beacon to both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. To the latter, we were to serve as a conduit for bringing forth the treasures of Eastern Christianity, which he said illuminates many aspects of the mystery of God and which has preserved much that has been lost in Western Christianity (his words, not mine, so don't cavil). To the former, we are to be an exemplar of how one can be truly Eastern (in my case, Eastern Orthodox) while being in communion with Rome, a communion that does not involve subordination or assimilation. To fulfill both of those roles, it is necessary for Eastern Catholics to be true to their Tradition and to resist impositions inconsistent with that Tradition, even to the point of opposing the Holy See. We cannot be Orthodox in communion with Rome if we are only allowed to be Orthodox in those things consistent with Roman ways. This, of course, creates great tension within the Catholic communion (though little is heard of it outside of ecumenical circles, since we are small and the Latin Church is large, and in the West most people frankly do not care a whit about us). We must constantly carve out our niche against the overwhelming mass of the Roman Church on a range of issues, whether it is respecting our practice of infant communion (my kids, who had already been baptized, chrismated and communicated, were denied communion at a Roman Catholic church because they were not "of the age of reason"), or respecting the canons regarding mixed marriages and children (couples must be married, and their children baptized, in the Church of the husband, but many Roman Catholic priests overlook this requirement and go ahead regardless), or to more profound theological issues such as our approach to salvation, to sin, to the Holy Mysteries and so forth. The joke in my parish is that RC stands for "Really Catholic", while our own initials BC stand for "Barely Catholic"--and that is the attitude taken by many not only among the Roman Catholic faithful but in the Curia Romana itself. On the other hand, the Orthodox look at Roman attempts to constrain us and say that all Rome's ecumenical declarations that communion will not require the Orthodox to change anything at all of their practices and beliefs is just a cynical ploy. How can they believe that they will be able to maintain the integrity of their Tradition, if Rome does not respect the Tradition of those Eastern Churches already in communion with her?
I agree with you that contraception is an objective evil. But I would go so far as to say all efforts to control or limit births are likewise objective evils from the Orthodox perspective. The ideal situation is a marriage continually open to the possibility of new life, consistent with man’s role as co-creator made in the image and likeness of God. All Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theologians would agree on that point.
Stuart,
So again, I am probably between you and Tony. I don’t reject all uses of artificial contraception and mandate NFP as the only option when a justifying need to limit fertility applies, so I am with you on that. You and I disagree on what circumstances justify limiting fertility but agree that NFP is preferable to AC, though AC is permissible when NFP is permissible, at least when their is reason to believe NFP will not adequately address the circumstances.
We all agree, apparently, that neither AC or NFP is permissible for any and all reasons. Frankly, it is that latter point on which the Christian community must focus at the this time, as large numbers of profession Christians of all traditions have lost this understanding. And it Protestant Christians, such as myself, which have the farthest to travel in that direction. Perhaps we can all agree with T.S. Eliots reservations about what the bishops did at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, when he wrote:
I regret, however, that the bishops have placed so much reliance upon the Individual Conscience; and by so doing jeopardized the benefits of their independence. Certainly, anyone who is wholly sincere and pure in heart may seek guidance from the Holy Spirit; but who of us is always wholly sincere, especially where the most imperative of instincts may be strong enough to simulate to perfection the voice of the Holy Spirit?
* * *
For to allow that ‘each couple’ should take counsel only if perplexed in mind is almost to surrender the whole citadel of the Church. It is ten to one, considering the extreme disingenuity of humanity, which ought to be patent to all after so many thousand years, that only a very small minority will be ‘perplexed’; an in view of the words of the bishops it is ten to one that the honest minority which takes ‘competent advice’ (and I observe that the order of the words is ‘medical and spiritual’) will have to appeal to a clergy just as perplexed as itself, or else stung into an obstinacy, greater than that of any Roman clergy, by the futility of this sentence.
* * *
It is exactly this matter of ‘spiritual advice’ which should have been examined and analysed if necessary for years, before making any pronouncement. . . . I am not unaware that as opinions and theories vary at present, those seeking direction could always find the direction they seek, if they know where to apply; but that is inevitable. But here, if anywhere, is definitely a matter upon which the Individual Conscience is no reliable guide; spiritual guidance should be imperative; and it should be clearly placed above medical advice . . . . In short, a general principle of the greatest importance, exceeding the application to this particular issue alone, might have been laid down; and its enunciation was evaded.
To put it frankly, but I hope not offensively, the Roman view in general seems to me to be that a principle must be affirmed without exception; and that thereafter exceptions can be dealt with, without modifying the principle. The view natural to the English mind, I believe, is rather that a principle must be framed in such a way as to include all allowable exceptions. . . . Even, however, if the Anglican Church affirmed, as I think it should affirm, the necessity for spiritual direction in admitting the exceptions, the Episcopate still has the responsibility of giving direction to the directors. I cannot suspect that here the Roman doctrine, so far as I have seen it expounded, leaves us uncertain as does the Anglican. For example: according to the Roman doctrine, which is more commendable–prudent continence in marriage, or unlimited procreation up to the limit of the mother’s strength? . . . If the former, what motives are right motives? The latest Papal Encyclical appears to be completely decisive about the question of Resolution 16–at the cost of solving no individual’s problems. And the Resolution is equally, though perhaps no more, unsatisfactory. The Roman statement leaves unanswered the questions: When is it right to limit the family? and: When is it wrong not to limit it? And the Anglican statement leaves unanswered the questions: When is it right to limit the family and right to limit it only by continence? and: When is ti right to limit the family by contraception?
T.S. Eliot, Thoughts after Lambeth, Faber & Faber, 1930, pp. 17-20.
I really enjoyed this exchange. As always, it helps to develop one’s own views and arguments to have a thoughtful and powerful advocate on the other side. Thanks.
As I have said before, I really need to type in a word processor or at least proof my posts before posting. Sorry for all the typos.
This is not unusual in East-West dialogue, which is why I asked GL to begin by defining terms.
I understand the value in doing this, but I have to say it reminds me of an incident more than 15 years ago. I was participating with a number of other lawyers in a deposition of a securities attorney who was a senior partner in a rather large, nationally prominent law firm. The attorney’s brother-in-law was involved in a scheme by which he was accused of defrauding a number of S&Ls out of 100s of millions of dollars (including our client). (It was part of the entire S&L debacle). Their were questions about the attorney’s role in the scheme. As we deposed this attorney, he avoided answering our questions by saying that he did not know the meaning of various terms. We had to pull out a dictionary and define to most mundane of words, with his responding by requiring definitions of terms used in the definitions. We finally had to call the federal judge who was presiding in the case and get him to order the attorney to answer our questions on pains of being held in contempt. (He was none to happy with any of us, a particularly common trait among federal judges. :-) )
Thus, defining terms has its value in any debate, but demanding it can be used to avoid engaging in the debate as well as clarifying it. If I was too reluctant to define my terms, then, it was because of a lesson I learned nearly 20 years ago.
Just to provide a glimmer of hope to all, the following article caught my attention:
GENERATIONS
The Fertility Gap
Liberal politics will prove fruitless as long as liberals refuse to multiply.
BY ARTHUR C. BROOKS
Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:01 a.m.
The midterm election looms, and once again efforts begin afresh to increase voter participation. It has become standard wisdom in American politics that voter turnout is synonymous with good citizenship, justifying just about any scheme to get people to the polls. Arizona is even considering a voter lottery, in which all voters are automatically registered for a $1 million giveaway. Polling places and liquor stores in Arizona will now have something in common.
On the political left, raising the youth vote is one of the most common goals. This implicitly plays to the tired old axiom that a person under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart (whereas one who is still a liberal after 30 has no head). The trouble is, while most “get out the vote” campaigns targeting young people are proxies for the Democratic Party, these efforts haven’t apparently done much to win elections for the Democrats. The explanation we often hear from the left is that the new young Democrats are more than counterbalanced by voters scared up by the Republicans on “cultural issues” like abortion, gun rights and gay marriage.
But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They’re not having enough of them, they haven’t for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That’s a “fertility gap” of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%–explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.
Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today’s problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020–and all for no other reason than babies.
The fertility gap doesn’t budge when we correct for factors like age, income, education, sex, race–or even religion. Indeed, if a conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the conservative. Some believe the gap reflects an authentic cultural difference between left and right in America today. As one liberal columnist in a major paper graphically put it, “Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation.” It would appear liberals have been quite successful controlling overpopulation–in the Democratic Party.
Of course, politics depends on a lot more than underlying ideology. People vote for politicians, not parties. Lots of people are neither liberal nor conservative, but rather vote on the basis of personalities and specific issues. But all things considered, if the Democrats continue to appeal to liberals and the Republicans to conservatives, getting out the youth vote may be increasingly an exercise in futility for the American left.
Democratic politicians may have no more babies left to kiss.
Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism,” forthcoming from Basic Books.
Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Dear Stuart,
First, thank you for your rationale for your position as a Byzantine Rite Catholic. Although I’m afraid it doesn’t squarely answer the question I was asking, it was most informative nonetheless.
Second, regarding your statement:
“Actually, I am not bypassing you, I am responding to your questions using methods and categories with which you are not familiar or do not agree.”
Neither is correct, though the second is closer to the mark. I am familiar with the categories (I assume you mean those used respectively in Western and Eastern theology). I don’t disagree with the categories per se in that sense. The problem I have with you here is that:
a) You are only willing to work with particular categories and definitions you favor, instead of endeavoring to engage in as impartial a give-and-take as possible in which both sides work with each other’s categories as well as one’s own. In other words, you do not attempt to put critical distance between yourself and your own positions, and enter into what my pastor calls the “critical sympathy” necessary truly to understand another person, rather than treating him or her as an abstraction. This means that, indeed, you are bypassing your interlocutors rather than engaging them, because you simply conduct arguments with the constructs of your own categories, rather than real flesh-and-blood people and their actual arguments.
b) You constitute and define your categories in a tendentious manner that misrepresents the other side and guarantees victory to your side from the outset. Any argument can be “won” by that strategy.
I am willing to work in good faith with your categories to the extent that you also are willing to work in good faith with mine. I am not willing to let you unilaterally define everything tendentiously to your own advantage (e.g., the “legalistic” West). As a philosophy professor rightly advised me 30 years ago, “You can’t just define an opponent into being wrong.”
I would hope that one purpose of this site would be to strive for common discernment of truth, by increase of mutual understanding, rather than to win debates. Even if we are confident of the rightness of our own positions, we must beware that “the heart is desperately deceitful above all things.” It is too easy for all of us (including myself) to identify truth with our own convictions, and so fall into the trap of believing that winning an argument advances the cause of truth.
Dear Stuart,
First, thank you for your rationale for your position as a Byzantine Rite Catholic. Although I’m afraid it doesn’t squarely answer the question I was asking, it was most informative nonetheless.
Second, regarding your statement:
“Actually, I am not bypassing you, I am responding to your questions using methods and categories with which you are not familiar or do not agree.”
Neither is correct, though the second is closer to the mark. I am familiar with the categories (I assume you mean those used respectively in Western and Eastern theology). I don’t disagree with the categories per se in that sense. The problem I have with you here is that:
a) You are only willing to work with particular categories and definitions you favor, instead of endeavoring to engage in as impartial a give-and-take as possible in which both sides work with each other’s categories as well as one’s own. In other words, you do not attempt to put critical distance between yourself and your own positions, and enter into what my pastor calls the “critical sympathy” necessary truly to understand another person, rather than treating him or her as an abstraction. This means that, indeed, you are bypassing your interlocutors rather than engaging them, because you simply conduct arguments with the constructs of your own categories, rather than real flesh-and-blood people and their actual arguments.
b) You constitute and define your categories in a tendentious manner that misrepresents the other side and guarantees victory to your side from the outset. Any argument can be “won” by that strategy.
I am willing to work in good faith with your categories to the extent that you also are willing to work in good faith with mine. I am not willing to let you unilaterally define everything tendentiously to your own advantage (e.g., the “legalistic” West). As a philosophy professor rightly advised me 30 years ago, “You can’t just define an opponent into being wrong.”
I would hope that one purpose of this site would be to strive for common discernment of truth, by increase of mutual understanding, rather than to win debates. Even if we are confident of the rightness of our own positions, we must beware that “the heart is desperately deceitful above all things.” It is too easy for all of us (including myself) to identify truth with our own convictions, and so fall into the trap of believing that winning an argument advances the cause of truth.
>>>First, thank you for your rationale for your position as a Byzantine Rite Catholic. Although I’m afraid it doesn’t squarely answer the question I was asking, it was most informative nonetheless.< << OK, to be a little more plain: because of his relationship to the Eastern Catholic Churches, there are limits on what the Pope can tell us or force us to do or to believe. The full implications of the Catholic Church's "ecclesiology of communion" are only now being realized. One of them is that the Pope's authority is in fact limited based upon the degree of primacy that he exercises over each particular Church in the communion. Liturgically, this was signified by the fact that the Pope no longer imposes the pallium (a woolen stole given to all Western bishops to signify their subordination to the Pope) on the Eastern Catholic patriarchs, but rather merely exchanges a synodicon or profession of faith with them and then celebrates a Eucharistic liturgy to ratify that communion. Looked at from another perspective, a hierarch of a Church of one Tradition cannot impose a belief or action on another Church that runs contrary to the Tradition of that Church. >>>You are only willing to work with parrticular categories and definitions you favor, instead of endeavoring to engage in as impartial a give-and-take as possible in which both sides work with each other’s categories as well as one’s own.<<< I see it slightly differently. I was not concerned with winning or losing (which is kind of irrelevant, since none of us is in a position to impose our beliefs on others) but merely to illuminate: we know the positions, pro and con, among the spectrum of Western theological opinions; we also know the thought processes behind them. Most people do not know the position or the theological processes of the Eastern Churches (your own strong disagreement, and even statements of disbelief tend to confirm that view), so my objective is merely to lay it out and allow anyone to take it or leave it. Objections to the position I rebut from within the Eastern Tradition in order to be consistent with that position. The Eastern Churches would not have taken the stand that they have unless they were building upon the entire edifice of the Orthodox Tradition in its fullness. It's pretty much the same problem I encounter when explaining to Roman Catholics the irrelevance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary in Eastern Christian theology. Aside from their shock (and sometimes scandalized looks), unless they are willing to accept that the East does not hold the same beliefs regarding original sin and its consequences as prevail in Western theology (both Catholic and Protestant), there is no way either to explain or defend the Eastern Christian perspective. Conversely, when I try to explain to the Orthodox why the immaculate conception is necessary for Latin Catholics, I can make no headway unless the Orthodox are willing to recognize that the West holds a fundamentally different perspective on original sin and its effects than that held by the Orthodox Church. Both sides get equally annoyed with me when I tell them both positions are equially valid within their respective Traditions, and that problems only exist when one Church tries to impose its views on the other.
Stuart,
“Most people do not know the position or the theological processes of the Eastern Churches (your own strong disagreement, and even statements of disbelief tend to confirm that view), so my objective is merely to lay it out and allow anyone to take it or leave it. Objections to the position I rebut from within the Eastern Tradition, in order to be consistent with that position.”
The parenthetical statement is simply false and illogical. If true, then by parity of reasoning the same applies to you vis-a-vis your statements of disagreement and disbelief regarding the West.
I also challenge you to cite any “statements of strong disbelief” I’ve made with respect to Orthodox theology per se, as distinct from your particular idosyncratic representations of the same. (Incidentially, I’ve had plenty of discussions with well-informed Orthodox clergy friends, who can vouch for my correct understanding of Orthodox positions on various points.) Your repeated attempts (such as here) to imply that anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant or misinformed is a perfect example of what you yourself in another blog called “insinuendo.”
Another example is: “Legalism is mindless application of abstract rules upon flesh and blood human beings, an imposition of a higher moral duty upon those who may or may not be prepared for it.” You repeatedly accuse Western theology of “legalism.” So, in short, you imply that Western Christians mindlessly apply and impose abtract rules on peole without regard to specific circumstances. How charitable of you.
And I’ll note yet again that you have not once responded to my previous requests that you document, out of my own statements (as opposed to your question-begging definitions), imputations you have made to me regarding my supposed beliefs on particular subjects. To repeat just one example on the current topic of contraception, I wrote back:
“You assert of me here that ‘You simply believe that there is only one way for a couple to do this, and they have Hobson’s choice in the matter.’ I believe nothing of the sort, and call on you to provide explicit evidence from my posts to prove your assertion.”
I’m still waiting, Stuart.
As for your second sentence — the basic point remains, which is that you simply seek to define other people into being wrong, which is what inevitably occurs when you claim the prerogative to define the other side, instead of allowing it to define itself and working with that. You “rebut” them by first misdefining them (alleged Western “legalism” being a case in point). That is not the same thing as remaining consistent with your own tradition, which should be capable of rebutting the West without first mischaracterizing it. That requires first the objective detachment from one’s own position and the critical sympathy of understanding the other side from within, of which I wrote. Perhaps you simply reject this. But if so, then a debate becomes nothing more than a shouting match between two deaf people.
Enough of this on my part. Turning back to something more edifying and more pertinent to the blog topic —
“. . . there are limits on what the Pope can tell us or force us to do or to believe. . . .a hierarch of a Church of one Tradition cannot impose a belief or action on another Church that runs contrary to the Tradition of that Church.”
I find this statement curious and ask you to explain it. First, it doesn’t speak well for the relation of the Eastern Rite jurisdictions to the Roman See on either side if there is any “force” involved in what you do or believe (as opposed to the discipline of voluntary obedience in Christ). Perhaps you misspoke here.
Second, there clearly are and must be limits to doctrinal divergence. E.g., with respect to original sin, the East and the West have sharply differing approaches, as is well known. But are you saying that the Eastern Rite churches under Rome can teach that Rome is in theological error or (worse) heresy on original sin, and that Rome allows this? Or are you claiming that the resulting “irrelevance” of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means that the said Eastern Rite churches are not required to accept it as an ex cathedra pronouncement generally necessary for salvation, as Rome defined it to be? If so, I find that incredible, and would ask you to post a specific pronoucnement from Rome explicitly declaring the same. (Ditto for the other ex cathedra doctrines of papal infallability and the Assumption of the Virgin.)
To rephrase this, I would hold (and it seems you agree) that Eastern and Western views of original sin exist in an unresolved dynamic tension as complementary views, rather than irreconcilable opposites where one must be absolutely right and the other completely wrong. Have Rome and the Eastern Rite churches explicitly defined specific parameters or principles as to the degree of doctrinal divergence allowed, and under what conditions Rome can and does enjoin subscription (as a matter of due obedience) to certain doctrines as essential to orthodoxy and ecclesial communion? What is within the “limits” that the Pope can do with respect to these churches?
Third, while your usage is doubtless clear in your own mind, I am dubious of your use of “Tradition” with a capital “T” to describe Eastern and Western theological systems and methods. As you yourself noted (by way of rhetorical question) under another blog, there is only one “Great Tradition” of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church If so, then I would suggest that all other “traditions” should fall into a small “t” category. Failure to follow this usage is what gives persons such as Patrick traction on the women’s ordination issue (in blogs 2-3 months ago) to claim that the Tradition changes in way contrary to itself, to posit several conflicting but equally valid Traditions, and to claim that Tradition is simply alterable custom or habit.
Fourth and last, the main question I asked, which you never directly addressed, is not how you justify being an Eastern Rite Christian under the authority of the Roman see. That is a perfectly logical position. It is rather, how do you do so as a person who constantly attacks and rejects Westen theological reasoning and methods, when that justification is based on none other than the same? To relate it back to my second question, I can’t credit the idea that the Estern Rite churches can accept the ultimate authority of the Roman see while at the same time rejecting Rome’s own reasons for why it has that authority in the first place. It’s one thing to prefer Eastern theological method to Western as a matter of temperament, quite another to accept the first as sound and reject the second as defective.
>>>I also challenge you to cite any “statements of strong disbelief” I’ve made with respect to Orthodox theology per se, as distinct from your particular idosyncratic representations of the same. <<< Excuse me? I cited verbatim and at length from a work by one of the foremost Orthodox theologians of the last two centuries, whose position you dismissed as "theologically naive". In my old neighborhood, that would be called "chutzpah". Depends, don't it, on what constitutes "authority" within the Church.
I’ve tried to follow this thread over the last two days. When folks write really long posts, it does make it hard. (Incidentally, do you guys have day jobs? :-)
I think Stuart is a little sloppy sometimes in his arguing (the Lord knows I would do far worse if I was writing posts as long as his) but I do think James should make some allowances for this. If you hang around long enough, chances are that Stuart will write something related to the answer you want. Neither of you are shrinking violets.
I think I see where Stuart is coming from on birth control. He makes good points in regards to the cynicicm engendered by *having* a rigid policy on birth control but not *addressing* it from the pulpit. (Incidentally, I think that Humanae Vitae is a prophetic document. I wish I’d heard it proclaimed intelligently from the pulpit during the first 19 years of my life when I was a Roman Catholic.)
I like the approach he says is that of the BCs regarding birth control. After our third child was born, my wife and I stopped using artificial methods, but it did always strike me that NFP is, or can be, a means of control–of a sort–but one that is infinitely more amenable to “living in the Spirit” with regards to embracing the possibility of children than, say, the pill. This willingness to live in the Spirit–a concept subject to much modern abuse as people take it to mean unlimited license–seems to be central to Paul’s approach to ethics for Christians. From Stuart’s description of how the Byzantines practice pastoral counseling regarding birth control, is more congruent with what I take to be Paul’s thinking than the blanket prohibition of the RCs. I wonder, though, if it makes any more practical difference to the average parishioner in a Byzantine church. Is the average BC parishioner any more likely than the average RC parishioner to be more open to children as a result of the church’s more nuanced approach? Or is he just going to expect his wife to use the pill like the average American idiot (speaking from the guy’s perspective)?
Since my chief theological difficulties with the RC church are the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the dogma of the immaculate conception, and the infallibility issue–all of which seem to be set by the board with the Byzantines–I wonder if we Anglicans can work out a similar deal? I have no problem with the Pope as primus inter pares; indeed I’d much rather have him than Dr. Williams. :-)
Back to ancient history, Matthias orginal reply to this thread, what do you make of the following from the survey:
Birth control/contraception is supported by 93 percent of all adults, including 90 percent of Catholics and 88 percent of born-again Christians, the “very religious” and Evangelicals.
Does anyone have a theory as to why slightly more Catholics support birth control than “born-again Christians, the ‘very religious’ and Evangelicals” given that the former has a formal teaching against it and few Protestant denominations do? Given the category in quotes, I am not sure that I can take much from this survey.
>>>Is the average BC parishioner any more likely than the average RC parishioner to be more open to children as a result of the church’s more nuanced approach? Or is he just going to expect his wife to use the pill like the average American idiot (speaking from the guy’s perspective)?<<< I really can only speak from the perspective of my own parish, and only with the caveat that it is not my usual practice to inquire about the bedroom habits of my friends and neighbors. I will say that the young married people who attend Liturgy regularly with us seem to have an awful lot of kids. One family is at nine and counting, another has just popped number six. There are many with three or four kids, and most people who have been married for five years or so have at least two. A lot of people seem to have babies withn a year of their weddings, so they get right down to it. If they decide to wait a couple of years before the next one, or if they decide to have an extended haiatus after number three, I'm not going to judge, nor do I think it makes much difference how they do this. The key question is how they arrived at their decision, and whether their motivation is consistent with the meaning of Christian marriage. We're a very lucky parish, and odd in relation to a lot of others: we have many more baptisms than funerals, and I much prefer to sing at the former than the latter.
The discussion in this thread is way past “mere christianty”! I must admit to being very much less knowledgable than Stuart, GL and others. I apologise in advance if my questions are simplistic or seem uninformed and off topic. I have read the entire thread and have a few comments and questions.
First, it seems that there are some real healthy egos at work here! I am glad to see that people tried to pull back and keep from getting really nasty. Close call though in a couple of places!
Stuart’s posts were very informative. One aspect that came through very strongly is the primary place of tradition/Tradition in his thought. He says that he would “never rely on scripture alone as an authority on any issue”. Recognising that this tread illustrates some significant divergence in opinion between traditions how can tradition be given an authority equal or greater than scripture? He remarks that scripture is part of holy tradition. I tend to see scripture as the word of God, something apart, that has been integrated into Church traditions. Where traditions disagree only one can be correct or perhaps all are wrong.
If it is our duty to live in accord with Christ’s commandments don’t we first look to scripture for guidance? This is where we receive our first principles. For some issues, such as divorce, Jesus speaks directly to the issue and we shouldn’t need church tradition to discern His commandment although it would be edifying. In the area of contraception there is not such clarity, so tradition, that is the guiding of the Holy Spirit, is necessary.
Stuart describes the variation in the role of marriage between the East & West traditions. He believes that marraige is a sacrament that perdures beyond the grave. When Jesus responds to the Sadducees question about who the woman will be married to in Mk 12:18-27 he says that when “they shall rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels who are in heaven”. This does not seem to give marriage the status in heaven that it has on earth. Do the angels marry or have they been married? It seems not! There is room for some variation in the understanding of this text so the discussion within Christian traditions can be illuminating.
Discussing the view of marriage and divorce in the Eastern tradition, Stuart asks which is worse, 2nd marriages, or fornication or adultery. It strikes me that what he has portrayed in the Eastern tradition as mercy is really practicality. We let them marry again (even though it is not given the same stature as first marriage) knowing it is facilitating sin, because otherwise they will just be tempted to greater sin if we don’t! Should the Church participate in sin so that good can result? I am conflicted on this question even though Stuart presented the Eastern case persuasively.
I found the discimination between sin, transgression and frailty interesting. I would ask, did transgression and frailty exist before the fall? If not, then aren’t they a product of the fall? If so, can’t they be directly attributed to sin? To me, the distinction sounds more like a simple hierarchy of sin. I guess I believe that sin is not only a failure to live up to an ideal (established by God) but is also the breaking of God’s objective rule or disregarding of His will. Regardless, Psalm 103 says the Lord forgives iniquity, transgression and sin.
Was anyone else uncomfortable with the description of the paths to salvation being like the spokes of a wheel? All the paths point to Jesus but I always envisioned that the path was Jesus! Isn’t this more in tune with the Biblical picture? Maybe the path to sanctification could be presented in this way, just reversing the flow starting with jJesus and moving outward. This doesn’t work real well either. Maybe I am just sensitive because of the relativist climate of our times.
A very interesting, if long winded, discussion. Thnaks to all.
First, it seems that there are some real healthy egos at work here! I am glad to see that people tried to pull back and keep from getting really nasty. Close call though in a couple of places!
William,
Admitted as to me. :-)
Stuart and I have had a rather less confrontational discusssion off-site, via e-mail. On site, we have, I hope, engaged in a vigorous, but respectful debate. I have to admit, however, that at times I may have drifted into Luther’s method of handling Erasmus in The Bondage of the Will. If I did, then I offer my apologies to Stuart.
In the area of contraception there is not such clarity, so tradition, that is the guiding of the Holy Spirit, is necessary.
I agree here. As a Protestant, I certainly do not give tradition the same weight as Catholics and Orthodox, but I do believe with Chesterton (a Catholic convert) that our ancestors in the Faith get a vote. I believe that all the votes which were cast before approximately 1900 (of which we are aware) were for condemning contraception. Some of these voters cited Scripture in defending their vote. There were no votes for permitting contraception (as far as we are aware) by prominent Christians of any tradition prior to that date.
Obviously, Stuart raises the issue of whether what those earlier generations condemned is exactly the same thing we are talking about in 2006. While I have not conceded this on-site before this, I do now admit that he raises a valid point here. It is clear to me, however, that if one reads all of their criticisms of contraception in context they are by no means limited to the abortifacient aspect of then existing methods of contraception and, in fact, they also condemned methods which we would not call abortifacient (e.g., withdrawal). Admittedly, however, their understanding of human reproduction might have, arguably, led them to believe that this method was also the killing of an already existing human life. As I wrote earlier, I believe there are ways to understand their calling contraception murder other than to mean that they considered it taking the life of an already existing person — that is, they could have been referring to preventing a new life coming into existence at all, ala C.S. Lewis in, for example, The Abolition of Man. Even, conceding this point to Stuart, however, one still must address their statements which refer to other reasons to condemn contraception.
Finally, I believe the evidence clearly show that the Fathers did not in fact view contraception as a form of abortion. There was throughout the centuries, in fact, different penances required for the two acts. Indeed, at times, the penance for contraception was much more severe than for abortion. At a minimum, this shows that the Church distinguished between the two acts. Second, if (a big “if”) the author(s) of The Didache was/were referring to contraception when he/they condemned practicing magic (or some similar translation) then that very early document, which in the same section also condemns abortion, made a clear distinction between the two.
Whatever one concludes, at a minimum, considering all the historic and Scriptural arguments, Christians should consider the use contraception to raise significant moral issue which deserve a great deal more prayerful consideration and pastor counseling than it has been accorded during the past few decades. I believe all who participated in this discussion would agree with that.
>>>Whatever one concludes, at a minimum, considering all the historic and Scriptural arguments, Christians should consider the use contraception to raise significant moral issue which deserve a great deal more prayerful consideration and pastor counseling than it has been accorded during the past few decades. I believe all who participated in this discussion would agree with that.<<< I would contend, consistent with all my previous statements, that all attempts to limit or control the number of births, whether using natural or artificial means, constitute a form of "hamartia" in Orthodox moral theology, since it falls short of the ideal of desiring as many children as God might grant. The issue, then, is whether this hamartia can be tolerated under the principle of oikonomia to avoid a greater ill, and if so, under what circumstances? And if we decide (as I think even the most vociferous opponents of artificial contraception allow), that limitation using NFP is permissible (itself a departure from positions held by the Roman Catholic Church prior to the middle of teh 20th century, while we're so busy honoring the opinions of our ancestors), are there situations in which artificial means are to be preferred to natural means, whether for physical, psychological or spiritual reasons? Having come this far, we are now in a position where one must concede that there are so many variable factors in play that a categorical answer one way or the other becomes impossible without violating the integrity of the human person. Therefore, the issue becomes subjective, to the extent that only those immediately involved are in a position to make that decision. Orthodox moral theology demands that such decisions be made after prayerful discernment, and the role of the spiritual father in advising the couple concerning alternative paths cannot be downplayed. But, as both Fr. Meyendorff and Archbishop Joseph agree, ultimately the responsibility lies with the husband and wife.
>>>Whatever one concludes, at a minimum, considering all the historic and Scriptural arguments, Christians should consider the use contraception to raise significant moral issue which deserve a great deal more prayerful consideration and pastor counseling than it has been accorded during the past few decades. I believe all who participated in this discussion would agree with that.<<< On this we are in full agreement. All of the arguments I have put forward are moot if the use of contraceptives is considered to be a "no brainer", something to be decided on the spur of the moment and without significant moral import. One should not entertain the notion of limiting or spacing children by any means without long and careful thought and prayer. Determining the means by which one does should also be considered a serious moral choice. Too many people give it not a second thought--and GL is right, to a large extent the fault lies with pastors and spiritual advisors who, for whatever reason, do not raise the issue or offer the guidance that is needed.
>>>He remarks that scripture is part of holy tradition. I tend to see scripture as the word of God, something apart, that has been integrated into Church traditions. Where traditions disagree only one can be correct or perhaps all are wrong.< << Dear William, The Christian East uses the term Tradition in a different manner than either Roman Catholics or Protestants, and assigns therefore a different weight of authority to it. When we speak of Tradition, we mean the sum total of all revelation within the Church, those things which have been accepted by all as normative to the faith; in this regard, the term is close but not synonymous with the Latin "depositum fidei". Components of Tradition include Scripture, liturgy, iconography, the writings of the Fathers, the acts of the Great Councils and to a lesser extent the canons of the Church. Withn Tradition, Scripture is given a privileged place because it is literally the Word of God. But it was the Church that determined the content of the Scripture, and before there was a defined canon of Scripture, there was the Church and its rule of faith. Scripture, therefore, can only be properly interpreted in a manner consistent with that rule of faith, which is merely another term for Tradition. Father Alexander Schmemann in several works writes about the difference between Eastern and Western views of Tradition, and notes that this holistic, gestalt approach to Tradition was once the common patrimony of East and West in the patristic era. The structure broke down in the Reformation, where Martin Luther put forward the proposition "Scripture over Tradition", to which the Counter-Reformation theologians responded "Scripture AND Tradition". We simply have not been through that experience, and so we retain the older concept of Scripture WITHIN Tradition. >>>When Jesus responds to the Sadducees question about who the woman will be married to in Mk 12:18-27 he says that when “they shall rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels who are in heaven”. This does not seem to give marriage the status in heaven that it has on earth.< << I addressed this by citing extensively from Father Meyendorff, who points out that the entire passage is directed at the Sadducees and their faulty conception of the Resurrection, but has no implications for Christian marriage. In fact, he cites Clement of Alexandria whose exegesis concluded that the import of the passage is that in the Resurrection there will be no carnal desire. Of course, if you happen to believe that the main purpose of marriage is procreation, one can certainly come away thinking that marriage is merely an earthly institutions, but the Greek Fathers and the sacramental theology of the Christian East going back to the first millennium are unanimous in rejecting that understanding. >>>I found the discimination between sin, transgression and frailty interesting. I would ask, did transgression and frailty exist before the fall? If not, then aren’t they a product of the fall? If so, can’t they be directly attributed to sin? To me, the distinction sounds more like a simple hierarchy of sin.<<< All forms of hamartia are a consequence of the Fall. In Eastern theology, the fundamental effect of the Fall was mortality: man became subject to death and corruption, and therefore developed bodily instincts in order to survive, including sex as a means of reproduction (a form of vicarious immortality, as our genes march forward--funny how the Fathers anticipated Darwin by 1800 years). However, these instincts, which in and of themselves are necessary for man, can become distorted into disordered passions, which in turn cause man to sin. Food is good, hunger tells us to eat--but overeating is gluttony, bad for body and soul. Sex is good within marriage, and has a useful purpose--but can easily fall into lust. The objective of Eastern Christian moral theology is mastery of the passions, hence the emphasis on asceticism, and especially fasting. The East does recognize a hierarchy of sins, but not in the way you described. Rather, we look at them in relation to whether they affect the body, the soul or the spirit, viewing the former as the most common and least harmful. Sins of the body would be the basic two--lust and gluttony. Sins of the soul would include envy, anger, and greed. The most deadly sins of the spirit are pride and vainglory, since it is these last two that put man in direct opposition to God by elevating man over God. The differences between sin, transgression and frailty have more to do with intention and causality than anything else. As I noted, the former is deliberate, the second accidental, while the third is, indeed, a direct outcome of the Fall, a symptom of man's finite nature.
This has been (and continues to be) a very interesting discussion and and education for me. I appreciate all the commnets and the links, especially those provided by Stuart Koehl and GL.
Stuart,
One single theologian, however eminent (and, yes, I’ve also read some Meyendorff, though not the particular book you cite), does not constitute the entire Eastern theological universe. Nor do you, if it comes to assertions of chutzpah. Nor, by definition, if one posits separate Eastern and Western Traditions with a capital “T” (as you do), does the Eastern Traditon become a universal norm from which to attack the Western Tradition as defective (as you repeatedly do).
You want to have it both ways, Stuart. You criticize the West as being in error by asserting the Eastern Tradition, which means that you consider that Tradition to be a universal norm (otherwise your criticism would be pointless). But any response from the West is discounted as an attempt by the latter to impose its Tradition on the East. This isn’t a one-way street, Stuart; either both sides or neither side has the right to criticize the other from its perspective, and to have that ability to criticize considered a valid exercisse.
You still haven’t done what I asked, which is to prove — from my own words — that I either a) hold the position on contraception you misattributed to me, or b) have attacked Eastern theology per se in the sweeping general manner that you repeatedly attack Western theology with your repeaed accusations of “legalism.” (This is of course distinct from any disagreement I may have with Eastern theology on a specific issue. I actually have very few of those, and probably none that couldn’t be worked out with mutual good will.)
I’m still waiting, Stuart. (Your silence is deafening.)
I’m really not interested in arguing with you, Stuart — really. You make many worthwhile and intelligent contributions to “Mere Comments.” I just want an end to the totally unnecessary and gratuitously repeated crap about (falsely alleged) pervasive Western “legalism.” It is totally inappropriate to this site, and it suggests a lack in charity toward your Western Christian brethren.
At any rate, Stuart, it would be most interesting and informative to have your answers to the other questions I raised regarding the relation of the Eastern rite churches to the Roman see.
In the end, Stuart, neither you, nor I, nor GL are all that far apart in our concerns for the significance of contraception to the sacredness of life and sex. The key question is whether its use is inherently immoral in all instances (barring very exceptional conditions), or whether it falls into a greyer area of prudential judgment for each married couple, subject to pastoral counsel. I currently seem to be in transition from the latter view to the former, but am not entirely resolved. Both you and GL have covered the matter well.
Finally, healthy ego (perhaps unhealthy, being a great sinner) admittted by me as well. :-)
>>>You want to have it both ways, Stuart. You criticize the West as being in error by asserting the Eastern Tradition, which means that you consider that Tradition to be a universal norm (otherwise your criticism would be pointless). <<< That is not the case at all, ad I am sorry you misunderstood me.
>>>At any rate, Stuart, it would be most interesting and informative to have your answers to the other questions I raised regarding the relation of the Eastern rite churches to the Roman see.<<< I recommend that you do some research into the so-called "Zoghby Initiative" of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, and if possible, find "Eastern Christianity: The Byzantine Tradition" by Fr. Lawrence Cross, an Australian convert to the Melkite Church; as well as "We Are All Schismatics" and "A Voice from the Byzantine East" both by Archbishop Elias (Zoghby) of Ba'albek. These authors cover in some detail the anomalous position and the paroxes affecting the relationship between the Byzantine Catholic Churches and the Church of Rome.
Understanding the role of the patriarch in Eastern ecclesiology might also help further understanding of the relationship between Eastern Catholics and the Pope. The following is from the web site of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton:
Role of the Patriarch
A Patriarch is a bishop who presides over a synod of bishops. Originally there were five patriarchates: one in the west (Rome) and four in the East (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch & Jerusalem). All were major cities of the Roman Empire, and vibrant centers of Christianity. Each claimed Apostolic origin, and their prestige was heightened by their connection to the Apostle Peter. St. Peter was head of the Church in Antioch (Syria) and, later, in Rome. His brother, St. Andrew, according to tradition had presided in Byzantium (later Constantinople). And the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Mark the Evangelist, was a disciple of St. Peter.
Their prestige was later also heightened by political power, especially in the seats of Imperial Rome and Byzantium (Constantinople).
Just as the Bishop is the representative of Christ, and the head of the Church in a particular location, the Patriarch is the first among the bishops when they gather together to deliberate on matters common to their churches. Our Patriarch, Maximos V, presides over the synod of bishops of the Melkite-Greek Catholic church throughout the world. His title is “Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Jerusalem and Alexandria, Thirteenth Apostle and Successor of St. Peter.”
Among themselves, the patriarchs also have an order of precedence, with the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope),being the First, and the Patriarch of Constantinople (the Ecumenical Patriarch) being second, etc.
As Catholics, we believe that the Patriarch of the West, the Pope of Rome, is more than simply the head of the Western Church. As successor of St. Peter, he has the added ministry of serving the other patriarchs and bishops in preserving the unity that is an essential characteristic of Christ’s Church throughout the world.
For yet more evidence that Protestants are beginning to once again consider how we should think about contraception, see Why Did They Fight the Contraceptive Mentality?
William Wilcox asked (a little while back):
>>>Recognising that this tread illustrates some significant divergence in opinion between traditions how can tradition be given an authority equal or greater than scripture? <<< I tried to give my own personal answer. Here is a very good one from the web site of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiose. It is especially useful for Protestants, since it was written by an Evangelical convert to Orthodoxy: THE MAKE-UP OF TRADITION The most important aspect of Holy Tradition, the New Testament, was still in its developmental stage throughout the entire period of the first century. The Holy Scriptures, God's infallible and unerring word deliv ered through the Apostles, stand alone and without rival. Orthodox theologian Bishop Kallistos Ware speaks for all Christendom when he says, "The Bible is the supreme expression of God's revelation to man." People from my evangelical background have bent over backwards to "hold fast" to this vital facet of Holy Tradition. A person could not consider himself to be evangelical if he did not read the Scriptures regu larly, attend a Bible-believing Church where the Scrip tures were both preached and practiced, and spend time meditating upon the message of Holy Writ. And who among the early Fathers would disagree with that sentiment? Saint Jerome wrote that "igno rance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." Saint Athanasius called those who neglect the Scriptures "worthy of utmost condemnation." And Saint John Chrysostom said that not knowing the Scriptures is "the cause of all evils." But tragically, somewhere in the white-heat inten sity of the "Battle for the Bible," many Christians have entirely overlooked the rest of Holy Tradition. Indeed, to badly misquote a verse in Acts, many evangelicals today would say in all honesty, "We have not even heard whether there is such a thing as Holy Tradition." Besides the Scriptures, I've already mentioned one other important aspect of Holy Tradition, the early baptismal formulations. What are some of the other elements of tradition? 1) Councils and Creeds. As the Church grew and matured, the need often arose for local, regional, and even ecumenical-universal-gatherings of orthodox pastors, bishops, theologians, and godly leaders, to establish true biblical and historical doctrine in answer to heretical claims of the day. They gathered to decide, again with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what the Bible really taught about those issues. And to make sure that their decisions were really biblical, they made extreme efforts to follow the consistent teaching of the godly faithful who had gone before. By far the most important of the creeds coming out of these councils is the Nicene Creed (or more technically, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), which is recited at every celebration of the Liturgy in the Orthodox Church. It states the absolute essentials of Christian Faith and belief as understood by the unified early Church. 2) The Liturgical Life of the Church. It is fascinating to read a later Church Father, Saint Basil (fourth century), as he defends biblical Orthodoxy against the pseudo-Biblicism of the Arians, who were masters at twisting Scripture. Of course, Saint Basil reasons from Scripture. But knowing the craftiness of his enemies, and how treacherous they were at proof -texting their absurd teachings, Saint Basil also invokes another powerful witness to, in this case, the true teaching concerning the Holy Spirit: the liturgical formulations-the patterns of worship-of the Church from her inception. "Do you want to know what Chris tians believe about something?" to paraphrase Saint Basil's argument. "Take a look at what they do and proclaim in their worship." When you stop to think about it, isn't it not only logical, but even a matter of piety, to believe that the same Holy Spirit who guided the writers of Scripture should also guide the Church in the development of her worship? The Church's liturgical and prayer life is a powerful element of Holy Tradition. 3) The Teaching of the Fathers and Lives of the Saints. I have never witnessed a martyr being tortured and killed for his or her faith. The early Church, however, had abundant opportunity to witness such spectacles. Is it any wonder that the writings of these martyrs, along with the writings of those who "fought the good fight" to the finish, who maintained true belief while others fell away, were looked upon with reverence and respect? Evangelicals today look to and trust respected Church leaders of our own era for sound Bible teaching and worthwhile instruction and edification. Why is it so difficult to give that kind of respect and honor to early heroes of the Faith-men and women who started, and finished the race? I wish that more of our "modern heroes" would do what all early Fathers and saints did to warrant the respect and admiration of their followers: make absolutely sure that what they are teaching squares with what faithful Christians have believed throughout the years. To be a "hero" to someone, and to teach new and radically differing doctrine in the guise that this is what "the Bible says," is a cruel deception and a lie. G. K. Ches terton defined tradition as "giving your ancestors a vote." 4) Continuing Tradition. Also included under the banner of tradition could be mentioned, with vary ing degrees of importance and universality: the deci sions of later councils, canon law, and finally the iconographic tradition of the Church. In fact, one of the most exciting things about tradition is that it never stops or remains static. Tradition is the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. We do not simply observe tradition, we enter into it, are swept up by it, and in the process become a part of its ebb and flow.
“When the Pope says, “Restore the fullness of your Tradition”, he cannot do so and also say, “Except where it diverges from Roman practice”. To do so makes a mockery of the entire enterprise, and causes Orthodox claims that we are just “Roman Catholics in drag” to ring true.” – SK
As an Eastern Catholic I can appreciate wanting to preserve the eastern Tradition, spirituality, etc., but to then say we are free to disagree with Rome on what it considers a “De fide” doctrine is nonsensical. Reading through these posts I am confused as to why Father Meyendorff is being quoted to undermine the teaching of the Catholic Church? With all due respect to Fr. Meyendorff he was, after all, a private theologian, who undoubtedly thought that he was putting further the proper Orthodox perspective, but absent an Orthodox consensus how do we know he is correct? Even if he is correct, the Orthodox perspective is not binding on a Catholic (eastern or western) when it disagrees with the magesterium of the Church. Rather, its value is only pedagogic. The claims of the Vicar of Christ go a little deeper than those of Fr. Meyendorff, and cannot be as easily dismissed if you say that you are in union with Rome. The Eastern Church has the right to our own theology, but implicit in that is not the denial of a ‘De fide,’ doctrine of the Roman Church. That doesn’t mean that we will always theologize in the same way that Rome does, but it does mean that we won’t deny any substantial teaching of the Catholic Church.
It seems that one of the primary arguments of the Catholic Church in regard to contraception is that by frustrating the marital act, the couple does NOT bear witness to the life of the Trinity (which Fr. Meyendorff rightly points out is the function of the sacrament). Why is that the case? Because the couple that uses contraception in a real sense withhold themselves one from the other, in the life of the Trinity there is no such withholding. Anyway, that is my two cents, and I apologize in advance to any and all persons that I may have unintentionally offended.
I know that this thread was titled Evangelicals and Contraception and so I hesitate to say more, but for those interested in seeing that the ban on contraception is universal (i.e. Western and Eastern) I submit this brief article that cites Catholic sources (Popes, Councils, and the Catechism) to buttress the argument. That aside it is good to see brothers of other confessions looking into this timely topic.
http://cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=24
Choose Life, That You and Your Children May Live: The Truth About Birth Control
Issue: Is contraception ever permitted?
Discussion: Under no circumstances is the use of contraception morally permissible. This infallible teaching of the Catholic Church flows from the natural law as given to us by God. As such, the teaching applies to all men and women (Humanae Vitae [HV] 18; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2036).[1]
Contraception frustrates the purpose of the marital act as the proper expression of love between husband and wife, and is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage (Evangelium Vitae, no. 13; cf. Catechism, no. 2349). Legitimate reasons on the part of spouses to avoid a new birth do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means, such as contraception or direct sterilization (Catechism, nos. 2370, 2399).
Many people object to the Church’s teaching on contraception. Some believe it is inconvenient and impractical, if not impossible. Others believe it is foolish and irresponsible in a world that seems overpopulated. Still others consider contraception and all aspects of their personal lives as private choices to be made according to their individual determination of what’s best for them. Some will even argue that if the Catholic Church were truly opposed to abortion, it would allow for contraception. They reason that if couples could contracept, they wouldn’t need to abort. These notions are false.
Objection #1: Ban on Contraception Is Impractical
Self-control is difficult, but with God’s grace it is not impossible. Those who maintain that couples cannot remain chaste and open to life bear witness to the fact that sin holds us in slavery and impairs our ability to freely choose the good. Yet Christ has come to liberate us from the slavery of sin and death (cf. Rom. 6:17-23), and history is filled with examples of chaste and heroically generous people.
Hedonism—the pursuit of self-gratification—is the opposite of true love, because true love is not selfish or self-seeking (cf. 1 Cor. 13:4-7), but involves a total gift of self to others. Christ manifested His love for us by giving Himself up for us on the Cross. Spouses are called to imitate this love through their mutual self-gift.
The secular entertainment and advertising media, as well as many sex education programs, assume that self control is impossible and promote hedonism. They encourage contraception as a means of ensuring “safe sex.” This is tantamount to treating ourselves and our children as animals, not human persons who have been created in God’s image, redeemed by Christ’s blood, and reborn as “new creations” (2 Cor. 5:17) through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Hedonism separates the unitive (love-giving) and procreative (life-giving) aspects of the sexual act. Hedonism wants the pleasure of sexual intercourse without the responsibility. However, sexual intercourse that is deliberately closed to new life is inherently selfish, not “unitive.” The sexual act, which was made by God to be the ultimate expression of marital love, becomes tragically cheapened by contraception into a means for using others to satisfy one’s own desires. All people want to be loved; nobody really wants to be used.
Objection #2: The Myth of Overpopulation
The world is comparatively empty. By allowing 3.5 square feet per person, all the people in the world could be brought together in an area the size of the city of Jacksonville, Florida. While everyone would admittedly be cramped in Jacksonville, it would be possible to allot each individual person 1,000 square feet (4,000 square feet of living space for a family of four) and still fit the entire world’s population in the states of Nebraska, Kansas, and South Dakota, leaving the rest of the United States, plus Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Australian South Pacific areas completely uninhabited by man.[2]
Pope John Paul II exposes the lie of overpopulation for what it really is: a “conspiracy against life”:
The Pharaoh of old, haunted by the presence and increase of the children of Israel, submitted them to every kind of oppression and ordered that every male child born of the Hebrew women was to be killed (cf. Ex. 1:7-22). Today not a few of the powerful of the earth act in the same way (Evangelium Vitae, no. 16).
There are, however, serious problems concerning the distribution of the earth’s goods. But this poor distribution is the result of sin, not overpopulation. Many of the world’s calamities and starvation problems are caused by political corruption within third world countries and a lack of generosity on the part of those individuals and nations with greater abundance. With modern agricultural equipment, adequate food storage facilities, and technology to ensure clean drinking water, third world countries could make great strides in becoming self-sufficient. Developed countries like the United States could help provide these improvements.
Unfortunately, instead of really investing in development and self-sufficiency, superpowers like the United States have coercively tied financial aid to the acceptance of condoms and abortifacient (abortion-inducing) contraceptives as a means to control these countries. Genuine development, not a surplus of contraceptives, is what these countries truly need. As the Church affirms, people are a country’s greatest resource (cf. Evangelium Vitae, no. 16).
Objection #3: It’s a Personal Decision
All truly human actions are personal decisions, and involve personal freedom. However, having the freedom to choose does not make all choices good. When we freely make bad choices, choices that injure our relationships with God and others, we sin.
And so the conscience must be submissive to the truth. That is truly the key to happiness in this life and the next. Sadly, many people today have exchanged a conscience formed by the light of Christ and His Church for a conscience that is independent from objective morality. That’s why the Catechism (no. 1792) cites a “mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience” as a “source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.”[3]
The notion that each person can choose—at least to a certain extent—what the guiding principles of morality are is known as moral relativism, a concept the U.S. Supreme Court tragically endorsed in a 1992 decision regarding abortion: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”[4] Without necessarily setting out to do so, those who embrace moral relativism usurp God’s role as author and judge of His creation. Not surprisingly, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, frequently refers to such relativism (often manifested as “cafeteria Catholicism”) as the central problem for the faith at the present time.
Objection #4: Contraception Will Reduce Abortion
This claim is patently false. The introduction of contraception dramatically increases abortion as well as the breakdown of families, divorce, and sexual relationships outside of marriage. In these cases, the illusory claim of “safe sex” leads to the inevitable failure of contraceptive devices.
Rather, the legalization of abortion has followed in every country that has embraced and promoted contraception. In the United States, the constitutional “right to privacy” declared by the U.S. Supreme Court to legitimize interstate trade of contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965) eventually served as the basis for making “abortion on demand” the law of the land (Roe v. Wade, 1973).
Couples not wanting to conceive will frequently resort to abortion as a final measure of contraception. Almost two decades following Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy upheld the “right” to abortion partly because reproductive choices are now made based on the judicially created expectation that abortion would be available in the event contraception should fail.[5]
Pope John Paul II has also recognized the connection between abortion and contraception, noting that both:
are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception (Evangelium Vitae, no. 13).
God’s Plan for Marital Love
The Catholic vision of marital love and, indeed, the Judeo-Christian tradition bearing witness to thousands of years of divine Revelation, present a completely different perspective. Within the Judeo-Christian understanding, sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The Scriptures are clear that fornication (sexual relations before marriage) and adultery (sexual relations with someone other than one’s spouse) are absolutely forbidden and condemned as a serious breach of God’s will. God created the first man and woman within a material relationship, a family (cf. Gen. 1:26-27). They were to imitate God in whose image and likeness they were created. In Jesus Christ, we realize the fullness of God’s plan for us. At the heart of the Christian Revelation is the mystery of the Trinity. It is the mystery of God in Himself. It is therefore the source of all other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith” (Catechism, no. 234).
From all of eternity, God the Father, who is all good, all holy, and all true, has given of Himself completely and totally. This gift is so perfect that it is the eternal Son, who is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God (Nicene Creed). Because the Son is equally God and the perfect reflection of the Father, who is all good, all true, and all holy, He imitates the Father and in turn gives of Himself completely and totally. This mutual self-gift of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity and the bond of unity in love within the Godhead.
God created us to imitate, with His help, the life of the Holy Trinity. Husband and wife are called to give themselves completely, holding nothing back, in imitation of the Trinity, whose gift of self is perfect. At the heart of the marriage is the marital act. And as husband and wife give themselves completely and totally to one another, they imitate God and, in so doing, may be blessed with a child. To hold back, to say no, to turn away from this gift of self and from an openness to the action of God, is a sin against God, one’s spouse, and the deepest, most intimate part of oneself. The act of contraception attacks our ability to image God, to act in His likeness. With God’s grace, the couple is invited to welcome life and, when children are given, to continue freely giving to them throughout their lives, raising them up in an atmosphere of heroic generosity and love, pouring out goodness and truth, and caring for one another. In this type of love, as with God, there is no room for selfishness.
This teaching is challenging, but it is the truth. Even without divine Revelation, the natural law bears witness in the heart of every man and woman that the act of contraception, including taking the pill or making use of a device to oppose the conception of a child in the midst of the marital act (cf. Catechism, no. 2370), runs contrary to the love act it is intended to express. In fact, contraception makes a lie of the love our sexuality was intended to express.
Natural Family Planning
On the other hand, the Church recognizes the natural right of parents to determine the number and spacing of births for just reasons. These reasons can take into account psychological and physical conditions of the father or mother and the obligations the parents have toward themselves, other children, extended family, and society in general. However, limiting and spacing births can be done without offending moral principles only if Natural Family Planning is used.[6] As Pope Paul VI taught:
The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund [infertile] periods is licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means which directly contrary to fecundation [prevent conception], even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases. In the former case the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in either case, the married couple mutually agree in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive, but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund [fertile] periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund [infertile] periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love (Humanae Vitae, no. 16).
The consequences of openness to life are profound. Children require a great deal of care, time, and resources. The demands placed upon parents may seem at times overwhelming. However, we are not free to deny the truth that they are a supreme gift from God (cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 50) and that we should willingly accept them. If we suppress this truth, we turn our backs on God (cf. Rom. 1:18-25).
Prophetic Voice of the Church
Judeo-Christian tradition has consistently and unswervingly opposed contraception, dating back to the contraceptive act of Onan in Genesis 38:9. Some argue that God struck down Onan not because he contracepted, but because of his refusal to provide children to his brother’s widow. However, such “levirate” laws were not enacted until long after the events of Genesis 38 and, in any event, Deuteronomy 25:5-10 refutes this interpretation, because the refusal “to perpetuate his brother’s name” only resulted in a man’s public humiliation, not his death.
All Christian denominations condemned contraception until 1930, when the Church of England repudiated Christian tradition and allowed it. By 1950 and the advent of the birth control pill, many other groups began to defect as well, so that at this time the Roman Catholic Church is an almost solitary voice against this evil.
The lies of the contraceptive mentality are most striking than in the cover-up about the abortifacient (abortion-causing) effects of many “contraceptive devices.” Many commonly used birth control devices allow conception, but kill the child shortly thereafter. These include, but are not limited to, the IUD (the intrauterine device) and the birth control pill. In their 1994 publication Birth Control and Christian Discipleship, the Couple to Couple League reports that 2,950,000 early abortions are caused by the IUD each year in the United States. Between 2 million and 4 million early abortions are caused by the implantation-resisting effects of the pill in the United States.[7][8]
As noted, these statistics refer only to the United States. Throughout the world, an estimated 250 million abortions are caused by the IUD and pill each year. This almost equals the population of the United States, and exceeds the population of most countries in the world today.
At the time of Adam and Eve’s original sin, God warned that the devil would strike at the offspring of the “woman” (Gen. 3:15). He also promised that the “woman” and her offspring would prevail (cf. Mt. 1:23-23; Lk. 1:26-35; Rev. 12:1-6). The only answer to the dishonesty and tragedy of birth control is Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn. 14:6). To eradicate this serious evil in our world today, we only have to take seriously our vocation as Christians and choose life, that we and our children may live (cf. Deut. 30:19).
[1] The term “contraception” does not apply to the use of Natural Family Planning (see pp. 112-113), nor to the use of interventions intended for a purpose other than the exclusion of children during sexual intercourse between a consenting man and woman. For example, certain medical conditions require the use of steroid treatments to regulate a woman’s cycles. As a medical treatment to aid in the health of a woman, this is not wrong. However, this treatment may have the same effects as the pill. Further, such treatment may not entirely suppress ovulation, and thus act as an abortifacient if conception occurs. If this is the case, a serious reason must exist for a woman to use such treatment if she is having marital relations while taking the treatment. Provided that a sufficiently grave reason exists, and she takes precautions to avoid intercourse during potentially fertile periods, it is morally acceptable to receive such treatments.
[2] Rick and Jan Hess, A Full Quiver (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1989), 72-77.
[3] See generally chapter 8, “Going God’s Way.”
[4] Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 120 L.Ed. 2d 674, 698 (1992).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Cf. HV 16; Holy See, Charter of Rights of the Family (October 22, 1983), art. 3; Catechism, no. 2370.
[7] John F. Kippley, Birth Control and Christian Discipleship (Cincinnati: Couple to Couple League, 1994), 14.
Dear Stuart,
Thank you for your further response, including the references. I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.
Also, following prayerful reflection last night, I wish to apologize and ask your forgiveness for allowing a sin of anger to have entered into our debate from my side. While I still think my basic original point is correct — that criticisms of denominations other than one’s own is not appropriate for this site — I did not always express that within the bounds of charity, and thus fell into the trap of self-justification instead of resting on justification by Christ. The wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God.
Thank you also to Bob, who said what I might wished to have said regarding Fr. Meyendorff and related points far better than I did (or could).
>>>Also, following prayerful reflection last night, I wish to apologize and ask your forgiveness for allowing a sin of anger to have entered into our debate from my side. <<< Dear James, There is nothing to forgive, as I took no personal offense. I for my part apologize for any excess of zeal with which I put forth my beliefs. We both care passionately for truth, for Christ, and for the life of the world for which He gave up his. Truth emerges both from introspection and from opposition. If we are never challenged in our beliefs, we can neither confirm their correctness nor refine them to more fully reflect the truth. If neither of us cared, we would not be echanging our views, and neither of us would have the opportunity to consider our ideas. We would then become both intellectually and spiritually fat, lazy and content to live with our own presuppositions. Let us always be able to speak frankly to each other, and to look over any breaches of decorum that either of us may commit. I respect your position and how you defend it. I appreciate also the time Bob has taken for a post that does well in laying out what he believes. I will respond to his after I have had more time to consider it and to write out my answers with care.
Bob,
You ask the question, “Is contraception ever permitted?” I do understand the Catholic teaching that artifical contraception (AC) is never permitted, but that abstinence during probable times of fertility is (i.e., NFP) under justifying circumstances (the later limitation being a restriction on the use of even NFP of which many Protestants are unaware).
It is here that my only substantial disagreement with the Catholic teaching exists. I cannot understand why a couple may use a time barrier (i.e., NFP) but many not use a space barrier (e.g., a condom) if circumstances exist which would justify the use of NFP, at least if the justification to avoid conception is extreme (e.g., the mother’s life would be at extreme risk) and there is legitimate concern that NFP alone would not adequately assure conception would not occur. (That is, the couple wants to use both to avoid any errors in the use of NFP resulting in a pregnancy which might well kill the mother. (I certainly believe that arbortifacient methods are always illicit.)
I have only come to my general view that contraception is sinful without justifying circumstances in the past couple of year. Yet, in doing so, my views are still tempered by the manner in which Christ treated hard cases with mercy, taking the position that the law is made for man, not man for the law and explicitly condemning the religious leaders of his day for laying burdens on the backs of the people which they could not bear. Paul exhorts frequent sexual intercourse between married couples so that they are not tempted into sin, which would seem to show that the Bible recognizes that periods of extended abstinence might create a burden which a person cannot carry. I have yet to read an explanation that I find convincing as to why circumstances justifying NFP do not also justify non-abortifacient methods of AC. I would welcome you or any of those who accept NFP but categorically reject all methods of AC to present that case. (And I’ll try to avoid being too argumentative in response, but may ask pointed questions about aspects of the argument which I find weak.)
Thanks for joining this discussion. I look forward to looking up the sources cite in your earlier post.
Dear Bob,
I’m taking out some time to attempt an answer to your post before it gets stale. I’ll start by saying that I am familiar with almost all of the arguments your post presents. Usually they are delivered haphazardly from different sources, so your post is a useful way of bringing them all together.
That said, I find I cannot agree with the overall conclusion that artificial contraception (as a form of contraception) is never permissible. Beyond that, I find that several of the arguments presented are either not consistent with the fundamental theological and anthropological assumptions underlying Eastern Christiantiy, or are logically or factually faulty; some appear to be red herrings of little impact on the core issue.
To take them in the order presented:
>>>This infallible teaching of the Catholic Church flows from the natural law as given to us by God. < << Natural law is a mainly an aristotelian phiosphical concept bent to theological purposes through Scholastic theological methods. The Greek Fathers, being Greek in thought and language, knew Greek philosophy very well, and while the Cappodocian Fathers and others frequently resorted to Greek philosphical terms and definitions, seldom accepted the primacy of philosophical methods over the more organic links of Holy Tradition. As John Meyendorff writes ("Byzantine Theology": "Greek in language and culture, Byzantium thus took a much more negative stand towards Greek philosphy than the West ever did. On the eve of the period when the West would commit its mind to the philosophy of the ancients and senter into the great epoch of Scholasticism, the Byzantine Church solemnly refused any new synthesis beetween the Greek mind and Christianity, being committed only to the synthesis reached in the patristic period. It assigned to the West the task of becoming more Greek than it was". So, at the beginning of our discussion, let it be stated that we (or rather, the minds of the Eastern and Western Churches) are working with very different premises and methodologies, which creates the risk of talking past each other. For that reason, I may harp on some fundamental definitions of terms from time to time, but this is necessary for a meeting of minds (if not necessarily for agreement in substance). >>>Contraception frustrates the purpose of the marital act as the proper expression of love between husband and wife, and is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage (Evangelium Vitae, no. 13; cf. Catechism, no. 2349). < << As I noted earlier, the East believes that the ONLY purpose of marriage is sacramental, to serve as a living sign of the union of Christ and the Church. The theology of marriage is fundamentally different between East and West on several points. The West views marriage as a life contract; the East as an eternal sacramental bond. The West prohibits remarriage while one party still lives, but allows unlimited sacramental marriages; the East allows remarriage after divorce, but only allows one sacramental marriage in a lifetime, and only three marriages in toto.In the West, the couple are the ministers of the sacrament, in the East, the priest--which creates an explicit Eucharistic context.The West teaches that marriage has two "purposes"--unitive and procreational. The East finds both of these to be "pragmatic" or "worldly", with more in common with the Old Testament understanding of marriage. It believes that in the New Covenant, all such purposes for marriage have fallen away. At a more fundamental level, the West still holds to the Augustinian understanding of sex per se as a concession to the Fall of man, a means of continuing the species which can only be legtimated in marriage. Sex without procreation is therefore sinful, and despite what the Catechism today teaches, it is useful for Roman Catholics to remember that less than a century ago, ANY attempt to prevent the conception of children, whether naturally or artificially, was condemned because the only legitimate PURPOSE for sex was procreation (in theory; in reality, of course, the Church made no effort to prevent conjugal relations by married couples where there was NO possibility of conception (i.e., sterility). The East, on the other hand, views sex as fundamentally good, a gift to man in and of itself, which is to be exercised sacrametnally within marriage. Procreation is NOT the reason for sex, and procreation is not the PURPOSE of marriage. Rather, children are the fruits of the sacramental union, a further sacramental demonstration of man's creation in the image and likeness of God through the act of co-creation with God. To enter into a marriage with no intention ever of having children without a just cause is a sinful distortion, even negation of the sacrament. But at the same time, any attempt to limit the number or the spacing of children is in itself a failure to hit the mark (hamartia), a failure to live up to an ideal. In this, the East maintains a more consistent link with the patristic ideal than does the West, which allows that there are "just" reasons for limiting the number of children, provided only that "natural" means are used. The Western, juridical conception of sin requires pastorally that a sharp division be made between "sinful" and "allowable" means of contraception. The former incur a penalty for violation of divine law; the latter do not. On the other hand, the "medicinal" model of sin in the Eastern Churches is quite comfortable in recognizing that, in a fallen world, all choices may (and usually do) involve hamartia to some extent. We are more concerned with the rationale for an action than with the means, since salvation is a process of theosis in which one is coonstantly striving and growing, two steps forward and one step back. Our conception of "chastity" in marriage, therefore has a somewhat different connotation than it does in the Western Church. For most of its history, the Western definition of chastity has focused on the legitimacy of a sexual act, and not on an attitude of mind governing a relationship between persons. While both East and West agree that chastity is antithetical to sex outside of marriage, we do so for different reasons. A Western theologian would tend to say that it violates chastity because extramarital sex is illicit. The Easstern theologian would instead speak of a violation of the integrity of the human person and of marring the indwelling image and likeness of God through the dominance of disordered passions. This difference of mind colors much of the difference in our positions. So, when the Catechism speaks of contraception violating chasity within marriage, we would not immediately agree unless we knew more of the reasons why a particular couple were using it. >>>Legitimate reasons on the part of spouses to avoid a new birth do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means, such as contraception or direct sterilization (Catechism, nos. 2370, 2399).< << This statement begs the question by merely assuming, argumentum ad authoritam, that contraception is always morally unacceptable. It also relies on an artificial definition of contraception that is, again, focused on means rather than effect or intention. If the pill, the diaphram and the condom are contraception, so, too are NFP methods, which today go far beyond looking at the calendar and playing "Vatican Roulette". Moreover, in both cases, the intent is to preclude conception, which presumes that there is a "legitimate" reason for so doing--but also ignores centuries of previous teaching by the Latin Church, as well as the patristic ideal both Eastern and Western. Given the Western conception of sin and redemption, this is a necessary pastoral construct. The passage also mixes apples and oranges, since contraception, whether natural or artificial, is not the same as sterilization, which is a permanent physical mutilation of the human body that is made in the image and likeness of God; sterilization for non-medical reasons is on par with removing a limb or an organ for non-medical reasons. >>>God created us to imitate, with His help, the life of the Holy Trinity. Husband and wife are called to give themselves completely, holding nothing back, in imitation of the Trinity, whose gift of self is perfect. At the heart of the marriage is the marital act. And as husband and wife give themselves completely and totally to one another, they imitate God and, in so doing, may be blessed with a child. To hold back, to say no, to turn away from this gift of self and from an openness to the action of God, is a sin against God, one’s spouse, and the deepest, most intimate part of oneself. The act of contraception attacks our ability to image God, to act in His likeness. With God’s grace, the couple is invited to welcome life and, when children are given, to continue freely giving to them throughout their lives, raising them up in an atmosphere of heroic generosity and love, pouring out goodness and truth, and caring for one another. In this type of love, as with God, there is no room for selfishness.< << The Christian East would agree with the first part of this statement, but finds the remainder of it inconsistent with the Western assertion that natural contraception is morally acceptable. If a couple are always to be open to conception, then of course, actions taken, whether artifical or natural are contradictory to that ideal. What falls short of the ideal involves, to the Eastern mind, some degree of hamartia. Since hamartia is a spiritual weakness or illness, the object is to get well. Therefore, there is no problem with recognizing that in a fallen world, all will fall short, but should be helped in attaining the ideal. We do not require the logical sleight of hand needed to make the West's juridical approach pastorally acceptable; we just note that not all are strong enough in their present state of development to fulfill the ideal, and we help them to find the right way to go forwrd towards theosis. >>>Hedonism separates the unitive (love-giving) and procreative (life-giving) aspects of the sexual act. Hedonism wants the pleasure of sexual intercourse without the responsibility. However, sexual intercourse that is deliberately closed to new life is inherently selfish, not “unitive.” The sexual act, which was made by God to be the ultimate expression of marital love, becomes tragically cheapened by contraception into a means for using others to satisfy one’s own desires. All people want to be loved; nobody really wants to be used.< << See previous statements regarding the purposes of marriage and sex, as opposed to the fruits of marriage and sex. >>>Objection #1: Ban on Contraception Is Impractical
Self-control is difficult, but with God’s grace it is not impossible. Those who maintain that couples cannot remain chaste and open to life bear witness to the fact that sin holds us in slavery and impairs our ability to freely choose the good. Yet Christ has come to liberate us from the slavery of sin and death (cf. Rom. 6:17-23), and history is filled with examples of chaste and heroically generous people.< << With about 90% of Roman Catholics ignoring the Church's teachiing, regardless of the issue of "practicality", it is clear that the teaching has not been "received" by the faithful. After Vatican II the Church was supposed to develop a "theology of the laity", but it is clear that it has failed to do so, but rather continues talking at, rather than engaging with, the People of God--thereby creating a major crisis of authority. The Christian East would not really concern itself with "practicality" but with oikonomia: what steps are needed to help specific people dealing with specific problems so that they can grow in Christ. The Western position is "objective"--it lays out an absolute and offers people the option of conforming or sinning. The East believes that the Church is about the encounter between man and God, and therefore the Church's approach must be "personalistic", looking at each human being as a unique person with unique strengths, weaknesses, and situations. One size does not fit all, and to blithely assume that this is either possible or pastorally prudent would seem to us to be an abandonment of the Church's obligation to exercise its oikonomia. For instance, it does not deal with the issue of women for whom NFP would not work, or would not work consistently enough; or for those whose partners are infected with a sexually transmitted disease, and so forth. Also, note that once again, chastity is used more or less synonynously with continence. We would say one can be chaste even in the throws of sexual ecstasy--it depends on how one approaches sex. To quote Arcbhishop Joseph (Raya) of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church: The Byzantine ceremony of Crowning glorifies Christian chastity. Chastity means integrity of the human relation, integration of the forces of life into the personalistic aspects of nuptial love, which leads the couple into the Kingdom, into the peace and harmony of life. Both fertile and childless couples go beyond the mere functional: the combine the instinctive and passionate movements of their love, integrating them into a single act of ascent of pure goodness. It is not in spite of marriage, but in its fulfillment in peace, harmony and supreme joy that couples live the supernatural and holy reality of their union, chastity. In the embrace of love, Christian couples are chaste. They are perfectly and entirely for each other. “I am my Beloved’s and my Beloved is mine” (Canticle of Canticles). In genuine faith, they assume their human and spiritual responsibilities, and choose the best ways, pleasing to God, to achieve what they have set out to do. Birth control is in some way their responsibility. Vatican Council II has clearly established that conscience is the most sacred core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths. >>>However, sexual intercourse that is deliberately closed to new life is inherently selfish, not “unitive.”< << Aside from the disagreement over the meaning of marriage and of sex within marriage, please tell me again the specific reasons why artificial methods are closed to new life, but natural methods are open? The intent in both cases is the same, and the reaction to failure of either methods is likely to be similar since those practicing them were intent on NOT having a child at this particularly time. And please don't say that it has to do with "efficiency". NFP advocates make as one of their strongest selling points that NFP today is "as effective" as the pill or a condom. If that is the case, then one can reverse the argument and say that both fail about as often, which in turn would mean that artificial methods are just as 'open to new life" as natural methods are. What we have here is a false dichotomy and a false position based on the desire to eat one's cake and have it, too. One cannot even say that natural means do not interfere with nature, to the extent that one does indeed actively monitor such factors as basal temperature in order to predict the time of ovulation--in order to avoid sex during the fertile period. But of course, the human body is hard-wired (by God, most certainly) to ensure that a woman's sexual peaks at the most fertile moment in her cycle--and that her body gives off pheremones to make her more sexually attractive at the same time. Jewish Law cottoned onto this fact long before we knew anything about the biology of making babies: the Mosaic purity laws not only prohibit a husband from "knowing" his wife for a certain time after her period, but mandate he take her to bed at precisely the moment that she is most fertile. Now you know why Orthodox Jews have so many children. Since NFP requires massive intervention into the normal behavioral patters for which human beings are programmed, it is not really more "natural" than "artificial" means, and is just as prone to abuse--particularly the grave spiritual sin of vainglory--unless accompanied by a regimen of prayer and metanoia (for by TRYING not to have children, one is falling short of the mark). >>>On the other hand, the Church recognizes the natural right of parents to determine the number and spacing of births for just reasons. These reasons can take into account psychological and physical conditions of the father or mother and the obligations the parents have toward themselves, other children, extended family, and society in general. However, limiting and spacing births can be done without offending moral principles only if Natural Family Planning is used.< << As I noted, this represents a major revision of Latin Church teaching from previous centuries, which one can either consider a legitimate development of doctrine, or merely a recognition of facts. For centuries, Catholic families had been limiting the number of children they had, even though the Church taught this was categorically wrong. Now, the Church recognizes the people have been doing this all along, and is trying to channel their behavior into areas it finds "acceptable". But in light of its previous teachings, it fails to make a coherent argument, but instead puts forward piecemeal a patchwork of positions, some of which are contradictory, others internally inconsistent, in order to get to the desired outcome. The main problem with Humae vitae is precisely that it did not go back to first principles and lay out a sacramental argument for the meaning of marriage and for the reservation of sex within marriage. >>>The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund [infertile] periods is licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means which directly contrary to fecundation [prevent conception], even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases. In the former case the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in either case, the married couple mutually agree in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive, but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund [fertile] periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund [infertile] periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love (Humanae Vitae, no. 16).< << Note to James Altena: this is an example of "legalistic" thinking. I've hung around enough lawyers now to know it on sight. >>>Judeo-Christian tradition has consistently and unswervingly opposed contraception, dating back to the contraceptive act of Onan in Genesis 38:9. Some argue that God struck down Onan not because he contracepted, but because of his refusal to provide children to his brother’s widow. However, such “levirate” laws were not enacted until long after the events of Genesis 38 and, in any event, Deuteronomy 25:5-10 refutes this interpretation, because the refusal “to perpetuate his brother’s name” only resulted in a man’s public humiliation, not his death.< << As noted by me elsewhere, there are a number of different interpretations of Onan, and the Levirate one is the most internally consistent with the text. Applicatins to Deuteronomy are anachronistic, both exegetically and historically. >>>All Christian denominations condemned contraception until 1930, when the Church of England repudiated Christian tradition and allowed it. By 1950 and the advent of the birth control pill, many other groups began to defect as well, so that at this time the Roman Catholic Church is an almost solitary voice against this evil.< << To be more precise, all Christian denominations have condemned ANY attempts to limit family size by any means whatsoever. The Latin Church itself has changed on that point, so again, the dichotomy is false. What changed was the extent to which various Christian confessions have gone with regard to means and rationales they consider acceptable. Note that the Eastern Church still thinks that all attempts to limit family size are a form of hamartia, but that the severity of this rule is tempered by oikonomia. Lacking the concept of oikonomia (dispensatio is very different), the Latin Church must de facto change its position on the legitimacy of any form of family planning. >>>The lies of the contraceptive mentality are most striking than in the cover-up about the abortifacient (abortion-causing) effects of many “contraceptive devices.” Many commonly used birth control devices allow conception, but kill the child shortly thereafter. These include, but are not limited to, the IUD (the intrauterine device) and the birth control pill. In their 1994 publication Birth Control and Christian Discipleship, the Couple to Couple League reports that 2,950,000 early abortions are caused by the IUD each year in the United States. Between 2 million and 4 million early abortions are caused by the implantation-resisting effects of the pill in the United States.[7][8]< << The Orthodox Church agrees that all abortifactant methods of cotracption are unacceptable. That does not eliminate all artificial methods, however. >>>Objection #2: The Myth of Overpopulation< << Red Herring. Although Planned Parenthood and other organizations use this, there seems to be no real correlation between the availability of contraceptives and total fertility rate. On the other hand, there is a very direct correlation between standard of living and total fertility rate: as countries get wealthier, the number of children they have declines. This has been true at least since the beginning of the industrial revolution and has held true for all countries in all places at all times. Conversely, the availability of contraceptives seems to have little impact on the fertility rate in poor, agrarian countries, because children are a form of human capital and an important source of labor. Where children can be put to work young, people have lots of them. When machines and intellect replace muscles, and offspring cannot work until late adolescence or even adulthood, people have fewer of them. Other factors may also pertain, such as social demoralization, oppression, government policies, etc. But the fact remains, it is hard to state unequivocally that contraceptives have much effect on fertility, or that contraceptives are needed to prevent overpopulation. In fact, demographers today are far more worried about a birth dearth. >>>Objection #3: It’s a Personal Decision< << Here, there is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between East and West because of different understandings of original sin, the nature of man (anthropology), and the process of salvation. If I might quote again from Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology" (though you will find similar statements in most books on the subject, such as Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way", or the works of Fr. Alexander Schmemann): [speaking of antinomies in Byzantine theology] On the level of anthropology one finds equally antinomic concepts in Byzantine thought. Man, while certainly a creature, and as such, external to God, is defined by his very nature, as being fully himself only when he is in communion with God. This communion is not a static contemplation of God's "essence" (as Origen thought), but an eternal progress into the inexhaustible riches of divine life. This is precisely why the doctrin of "theosis"--i.e., the process through which man recovers his original relation to God and grows ito God "from glory to glory"--is the central theme of Byzantine theology and the Eastern Christian experience itself. Here again, static concepts like "human nature" (i.e., that which is properly human) and 'divine grace" (that which comes from God) can only be used antinomically: grace is seen as part of nature itself. Also, if one understands the ultimate destiny of man, and therefore also his "salvation" in terms of "theosis" or "deification", rather than as a justification from sin and guilt [and see also N.T. Wright on the true meaning of those terms in a biblical sense--SLK], the Church will necessarily be viewed primarily as A COMMUNION OF FREE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF GOD {Caps Added] and only secondarily as an institution endowed with authority to govern and judge. *** I wrote earlier concerning the implications this has for Christian marriage, quoting again the Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop Joseph. As he wrote: The theologian Paul Evdokimos, in his study on the “Sacrament of Love”, summarizes the attitude of Eastern theology on birth control: The Church “addresses herself to evangelical metanoia, and hopes to change man and woman into a new creation, to render them charismatic; She exorcises demonic powers and protects the Gate of Life; She discerns among the spirits, and shows the pathways to ultimate liberation; She does not define the rules of social life, and does not prescribe panacaeas. . . “ (p.175). The Church should never refuse to advise when advice is sought, but should not try to manipulate the intimacy of husband and wife. Patriarch Maximos IV of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem proclaimed at the Council of Vatican II, “The Church does not penetrate into the nuptial chamber. She stands at the door.” The Byzantine Church does indeed believe that the Sacrament of Crowning establishes the man and woman as prophets, king and queen of supernatural worth, and robes them with the Royal Priesthood of Christ. Their dignity is real. Consequently, their vocation will be to form personal decisions, and to judge situations, in order to find solutions to the individual circumstances of their lives. >>>Objection #4: Contraception Will Reduce Abortion<<< Another canard, not borne out by statistics, but also not proving the point that is being asserted here. In fact, abortion became legal in many states long before the pill became available. Conversely, artificial means of contraception were in wide use long before abortion became common. There seems to be no close causal relationship, and it doesn't help the case to make it. For instance, one can look at Scandinavia, where abortion rates are much lower than in the States but where use of contraception is almost universal (and reflected in the demography). On the other side of the equation, one can look at the USSR (and post-Communist Russia) where contraceptives are expensive and difficult to obtain, but where abortion is routinely used for that purpose (many women have three or more abortions, leading to permanent sterility). Inclusion of the abortion issue as being linked directly to contraception is reductionist and ignores a broader, and more serious problem. That problem, I believe, is subsumed in what many have called the "Contraceptive Mentality", but I find that name misleading. It would be better to say that widespread promiscuity (which has also existed in different times and places before the pill), the widespread rejection of marriage and parenthood, and an increasing focus on transient worldly pleasures is the result of a deep moral ambivalence among many people concerning their entire cultural patrimony, including Christianity. As Chrstopher Lasch noted, in Revolt of the Elites, we are faced today with a massive "traihson des clercs"--that is, the elites with the most invested in society, and with the most to lose, have turned their back on the values that make the society possible. Hypocrisy among the ruling classes is a common historical theme--aristocrats fornicating their way through life while upholding the Church and preaching continence for the peasants--but today's elite do not consider themselves hypocrites at all: they preach libertinism openly, and decry the older virtues as the basis for hypocrisy, since they themselves cannot live up to them. Their rejection of the good, their embrace of a cultural death wish, is spread through the unprecedented control of the culture in the hands of a few. Within that metaphenomenon, contraceptives play a relatively small part. Focusing on it, to the detriment of other parts, or treating contraception as though it was the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, does indeed put the cart before the horse. My position all along has been moral renewal begins with a greater appreciation of sacramental life viewed as an encounter with God. That Byzantine theology regards this encounter to be dynamic in nature and its understanding of salvation of theosis, puts me in the position of having to recognize that the use of contraception is ultimately the responsibility of a husband and wife exercising their vocations as king, queen and priests of the domestic Church, and that arbitrary and categorical condemnations do not take cognizance of the reality of that vocation, and indeed, impinge on the unlimited human freedom that is part of the image and likeness that man inherited from his Creator (and yes, I recognize that this is also different from the Western understanding of freedom). As Archbishop Joseph says, the issue is tragic; it is complex. And it does not lend itself to easy solutions. As a basic principle, the Eastern Churches believe that transfiguration is an individual process, which cannot be forced, but which proceeds according to the extent a person cooperates with the indwelling grace of the Holy Spirit (OK, so we're semi-pelagian, to boot). That means the proper role for the Church iin this situation is not to judge or condemn, but to guide and help the faithful prayerfully discern the path of theosis that is open to them.
Dear Stuart,
There are a few questions to which I would like to have your further responses, if I may.
1) You refer to “non-sacramental” re-marriages. But marriage is a sacrament. How then can any marriage be non-sacramental? Or ar you asserting that marriage is not a sacrament per se in the sense that Baptism or the Eucharist is a sacrament?
2) You asserted that GL was “proof-texting.” That was clearly meant as a criticism (and is often lodged against evangelicals, fundamentalists, etc.) Since you’re big on definitions (and so am I), would you please:
a) define the distinction between proof-texting on the one hand, and proper citation of Scripture to prove or support a point on the other, and
b) give your criteria for making that distinction?
(To say simply that the latter is done “holistically” and “within the Tradition” begs the question. How does one determine which citations are being made that way and which are not? I think GL’s original point was that, per the Vincentian canon, we know the authentic Tradition of the undivided Church from the consensus of the fathers. If the fathers present a consensus on a given point — e.g., contraception as illicit — then GL is making proper citations within the Tradition and not proof-texting.)
Without that definition and criteria, I’d have to say that the biggest proof-texter of all time was Our Lord.
3) Agreed that Scripture is within the Traditon, rather than separate from it (sola scriptura or scripture-traditona dualism). But within the Tradition it holds necessarily the primary place, with the writings of the patristic fathers following, and then modern theologians after that. But I can’t recall a single instance where you have ever cited Scripture, Stuart, and the patristic fathers relatively rarely, and yo seem to object to those who do. Care to explain this?
4) You wrote as follows:
“The Eastern way is not to lower the standard, but rather to exalt it as an ideal to which all should aspire. We recognize that not everyone can immediately live up to this ideal, whether it is in regard to fasting, or to marriage, or to contraception. And so we mitigate the rigor of the law to accommodate the needs of the individual person.”
As another Orthodox interlocutor noted, oikonomia can appear to be license (and not just to Westerners), or at least arbitrary and at the whim of the particular bishop or priest involved. We (you, GL, myself, probably everyone else posting here) all understand that oikonomia is not license, but pastoral application of principle to particular cases.
[We don’t really have all that much trouble wrapping our heads around it, Stuart, because we generally aren’t legalistic in the pejorative sense of the first two of Prof. Esolen’s four distinctions. Anglo-Catholicism, at least, conforms to the last two instead, and is very akin to the Eastern approach you outlined.
A few months ago, I read an article about the recent mandate from Rome against admitting postulants with homosexually inclinations to seminaries. A Vatican spokesman, speaking off record, made the same point as the one cited above by someone from T. S. Elliot — that the Latin mind regards law as an ideal not to be perfectly attained, but a mark for which one strives, and does not expect perfect fulfillment; whereas the English legal mind regards law as a realizable standard capable of full attainment. If so, then the Latin mind of the Roman see in fact has a view of sin essentially identical to that of the East — and the “legalism” you see in it is only in its formal means of rational codification. Apparently you see such codification as a symptom of the diseased sense of legalism, Stuart; we would disagree.
Here endeth the digression.]
We agree on sin as “missing the mark.” My own more verbose but precise definition would be to define sin as “all human thought, speech, and conduct that, within the original inherent conditions of unfallen creaturely finitude, falls short of perfect conformity to the image and likeness of God.”
We also agree on the distinction between sin, transgression, and frailty, in terms of intention and capacity. (I learned a similar distinction between sin and fault.) My definition above, however, would include trangression as a form of sin, albeit a less culpable one. The difference between us would seem to be whether sin as a catgory requires conscious or willfull intention. (This will be significant for my question below.)
The problem I (for one) am having is not that oikonomia is license, but rather with what I take to be your particular explanation of it. That explanation appears implicitly hold that, by way of oikonomia, the Church can and does countenance a lesser sin as preferable to the likelihood of a greater one occurring.
[This also came up in a previous debate between us on just war theory. I don’t want to re-open that argument; but the import of your comments was to assert that that all killing in war is sin; that Western “just war” theory is thus a flawed “legalistic” attempt to exculpate the soldier from that sin (similar to the way that you suggest annulment circumvents divorce); but that war may nonetheless be a preferable lesser evil as a response to certain circumstances, and thus the soldier’s acts of killing are in Eastern theology dealt with pastorally by way of oikonimia.]
The problem is that, as a cardinal principle of moral theology, God’s perfect goodness means that He never leaves us in a situation where our only options are to choose between greater and lesser sins. (Cf. I Cor. 10:13 — I suppose I’ll now be charged with proof-texting here and elsewhere.) However difficult or “heroic” the virtue required, a non-sinful alternative is always open to us, and it is our obligation to purpose that to the best of our ability, and rely upon grace to supply what lies beyond our own capacity.
Thus, it is not that oikonomia is license per se. E.g., with respect to fasting, oikonomia can mitigate or waive normal requirements becuse the fasting is a prudential means to a spiritual end. The concern is that oikonomia becomes license if and when it is posited that a lesser sin is to be countenanced as preferable to the likelihood of a greater sin because avoidance of the greater sin would require “heroic virtue.” This is quite distinct from pastoral treatment of someone who strives for what virtue requires (however heroic) and falls short of it. The “lesser of two evils” approach threatens very quickly either to:
a) reduce to a “let us do evil, that good may come” rationale (Rom. 3:8), against which Paul warned,
b) make God the author of sin by giving man only a Hobson’s choice between committing greater and lesser sins; or
c)lead to a “situational ethics” position that certain sins are not sins due to specific circumstances; or
d) lead to an “the ends justifies the means” rationalization for committing a “lesser” sin.
[There is of course a distinction between evil and sin, in that the former also includes worldly ills not performed by moral agents. But the current discussion concerns specific volitonal choices by moral agents, so that here “sin” and “evil” coincide.)
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did not simply say “Strive for the best you can do”; he said unconditionally, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48). We not only cannot strive for any lesser goal, but also cannot so strive by sinful means. The standards to be upheld and exalted are not only the goals, but also the means to attain the same.
The question thus concerns what means are licit, and will in fact lead to the desired end. Heroic virtue is not required where ordinary virtue is an option. Thus, e.g., celibacy as heroic virtue is not required where marriage is available; rigorous fasting is not required where it would do harm and lesser fasting would achieve the goal instead. But heroic virtue is required where the only alternative is sin (and hence is then not a sin of presumption). Thus celibacy is mandatory as the alternative to adultery, fornication, perversion, etc.
The real question here, then, is whether both contraception and re-marriage after divorce where the previous spouse is still living are two examples of illicit resort to lesser sin where striving for the respective virtues of continence and celibacy are the necessary alternatives, even if “heroic” ones.
You, Stuart, hold that the West is putting the cart before the horse by putting “hydraulics” ahead of “intent” in determining morality. I (and GL, I think) dispute that. Rather we are asking the legitimate question (which is not at all legalistic) of whether a proposed means is intrinsically immoral. If so, then the very use of it is evidence of sinful intent. Or, alternativeley, even good intentions cannot make it moral (and in that sense transgression is sin). For if the means are intrinsically immoral, then no amount of good intention and permission by way of oikonomia can cause them to lead to the right end.
Not all means are morally neutral, with the morality depending on particular application and intention. I therefore dispute your statement that technology is morally neutral. Some technologies are inherently immoral, because they are specifically designed and intended for a sinful purpose. There is no such thing as a non-sinful Nazi gas chamber.
To rephrase the issue, the question is whether “hydraulics” are inherently morally neutral and capable of either moral or immoral application; or whether they have an intrinsic moral nature apart from an agent’s moral intent, or necessarily evinces corresponding moral intent. If all means (technological or otherwise) are inherently morally neutral, they do not; if some have an intrinsic moral nature, then they can, and that must be determined first.
The West is concerned as much as the East with discerning intent first and foremost in making moral determinations. The disagreement is not one of legalism vs. oikonomia; it is what falls into the category of the absolutes and what does not before the exercise of oikonomia comes into play. The problem that I (and I think GL) have is that in your explanation, it appears to us that the East is the one putting the cart before the horse, by making intent determinate of the the licitness of means without first asking if the means are intrinsically immoral.
Finally, you hold that there is no consensus of the undivided Church on contraception and that it therefore falls into the realm of oikonomia. GL holds that there is such a consensus and it does not. Even if GL is wrong, that does not make him or his positon “legalistic” — especially if, to use your own criterion, the determination for that is one of intent.
So, Stuart, I’m explaining how it looks from our side of the fence. I’m requesting clarification of your posiiton here regarding the limits of what oikonomia can determine to be licit, and according to what principles. Run with it!
Procreation is NOT the reason for sex, and procreation is not the PURPOSE of marriage. Rather, children are the fruits of the sacramental union, a further sacramental demonstration of man’s creation in the image and likeness of God through the act of co-creation with God. To enter into a marriage with no intention ever of having children without a just cause is a sinful distortion, even negation of the sacrament.
Stuart,
Upon reflection, the above quote gets to the core of what bothers me about your position. Procreation is not THE only reason for sex, but it is a primary one. Procreation is not THE purpose of marriage, but it is a primary one. Certainly children are the fruits of marriage, but they are not merely a byproduct of marriage, but one of the primary purposes for which God created marriage. I would agree that to enter into a marriage with no intention ever of having children without a just cause is a sinful distortion, even negation of marriage, but I would add that to enter marriage with the intent to limit the number of children procreated without a just cause is a sinful distortion, even negation of marriage.
Let’s analogize to the Christian life. To profess Christ as Lord and Savior with the intent never to share the Gospel with anyone is a sin and even a negation of servanthood, but so is the intent to limit the number of persons with whom one shares the Gospel. How can one say “Jesus is Lord” when he intends to stop after sharing the Gospel with only two other person? How much better would such an intent be than to intend to share it with none. I view “be fruitful and multiple” as being the biological and physical equivalent of the Great Commission. Human procreation is, in a sense, a physical image of evangelization. Bearing fruit, physically and spiritually, is that for which we are designed.
You might intend the same thing I’ve just said and perhaps the East/West dichotomy you keep noting prevents me from seeing that.
Dear Stuart,
I did not mean to mislead you, or anyone else, regarding the source of the article that I posted, but it is not my own. It is from Catholics United for the Faith, I included a link to the article and was going to leave it alone at that, but I did not know how to make it an “active” hyperlink. So I apologize for the confusion, if there was any.
That being said I acknowledge that it was written from a Western Perspective, but it also pointed to the ‘universality,’ of the ban on contraception. What I am trying to understand is exactly what you mean when you say that you are an Orthodox in communion with Rome? I am a Byzantine Catholic, and as such I defer to the Catholic Church’s judgment on questions of morality, it appears that you are more comfortable with private eastern theologians? If that is not correct please explain to me exactly what your position is, and what your authority is. I refer you to my first post on this subject:
“As an Eastern Catholic I can appreciate wanting to preserve the eastern Tradition, spirituality, etc., but to then say we are free to disagree with Rome on what it considers a “De fide” doctrine is nonsensical. Reading through these posts I am confused as to why Father Meyendorff is being quoted to undermine the teaching of the Catholic Church? With all due respect to Fr. Meyendorff he was, after all, a private theologian, who undoubtedly thought that he was putting further the proper Orthodox perspective, but absent an Orthodox consensus how do we know he is correct? Even if he is correct, the Orthodox perspective is not binding on a Catholic (eastern or western) when it disagrees with the magesterium of the Church. Rather, its value is only pedagogic. The claims of the Vicar of Christ go a little deeper than those of Fr. Meyendorff, and cannot be as easily dismissed if you say that you are in union with Rome. The Eastern Church has the right to our own theology, but implicit in that is not the denial of a ‘De fide,’ doctrine of the Roman Church. That doesn’t mean that we will always theologize in the same way that Rome does, but it does mean that we won’t deny any substantial teaching of the Catholic Church.
It seems that one of the primary arguments of the Catholic Church in regard to contraception is that by frustrating the marital act, the couple does NOT bear witness to the life of the Trinity (which Fr. Meyendorff rightly points out is the function of the sacrament). Why is that the case? Because the couple that uses contraception in a real sense withhold themselves one from the other, in the life of the Trinity there is no such withholding. Anyway, that is my two cents, and I apologize in advance to any and all persons that I may have unintentionally offended.”
>>>Upon reflection, the above quote gets to the core of what bothers me about your position. Procreation is not THE only reason for sex, but it is a primary one. Procreation is not THE purpose of marriage, but it is a primary one. < << Dear GL, I think there is a slight semantic difference between your statement and mine (which mirrors that of Fr. Meyendorff and Archbishop Joseph). You use the terms "reason" and "purpose", but neither Meyendorff nor I use them. Instead, we speaks of only one "reason" or "purpose" for both: as a sacrament of the union of Christ and the Church. This purpose and rationale is fundamentally eschatological--it points to the Kingdom and manifests its presence on earth. On the other hand, we point to children as "fruits" of the union, a felicitous side effect that deepens the Mystery by allowing man to become a co-creator in the image and likeness of God. >>>Certainly children are the fruits of marriage, but they are not merely a byproduct of marriage, but one of the primary purposes for which God created marriage.< << Certainly, procreatikon and marriage are linked in the Old Covenant, but I think Fr. Meyendorff and the Greek Fathers have the better end of the argument in saying that in the New Covenant, marriage has no earthly function or purpose. >>>but I would add that to enter marriage with the intent to limit the number of children procreated without a just cause is a sinful distortion, even negation of marriage.<<< And, in the annoyingly antinomian fashion of Byzantine theologians everywhere, I agree with you. As I have written, the Latin Church is a little disingenous in claiming that married couples have the right to limit or space the childborths, but only using natural methods. In fact, until Vatican II, the traditional Latin teaching on the subject--indeed, the teaching of most Christian Churches and denominations, in fact, was any attempt to control conception, natural or articicial, was wrong. The new teaching is, in its way, a radical departure from the past, for pastoral reasons. The issue is whether or not the Church should take cognizance of human frailty and mitigate its discipline with mercy; or allow only a rigid, legalistic approach that had the potential to drive people away from Christ or into graver sins. I have not written anything specifically on the Church's obligation to oikonomia, or the real meaning of the term, which I suspect is gravely misunderstood by most. Meyendorff gives a very complete and concise explanation: Oikonomia In both historical and theological literature, the principle of oikonomia is oftern referred to to illustrate teh particularly Byzantine ability to interpret the law arbitrarily to suit political or personal purposes [I suspect this is what a lot of you think--SLK]. Such a use betrays an obvious misunderstanding of the term, and is an injustice both to the principle itself and to its proper application. The term oikonomia does not belong originally to legal vocabulary; meaning "household management', it designates in the New Testament the divine "plan of salvation": "He has made it known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a "plan" (oikonomia) for the fullness of time to recapitulate all things in him, things on heaven and things on earth" (Eph 1:9-10, v. also 3:2-3). But this divine plan for the management of history and of the world HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED TO MEN [emph added]. For Paul, preaching the word is an oikonomia, entrusted by God (1 Cor 9:17), and therefore, we should be regarded as "servants of Christ and stewards (oikonomoi) of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor 4:1). More specifically, the "management" or "stewardship" belongs to those who fulfill the mystery of leading the Church: "The Church, of which I become a ministry according to the divine office (oikonomia) which was given to me for you" (Col 1:24-25). In the Pastorals, the oikonomia belongs particularly to the Episkopos: For a bishio, as God's steward (oikonomos) must be blameless" (Tt 1:7). Among the Greek Fathers, oikonomia has the standard meaning of "incarnation history", especially during the Christological controversies of the fifth century. In a subsidiary way it is also used in canonical texts, and then, obviously, places the pastoral "management" entrusted to the Church in the context of God's plan for the salvation of mankind. Thus, in his famous "Letter to Amphilochius", Basil of Ceasarea, after reaffirming the Cyprianic principle about the invalidity of baptism by heretics, continues, "If, however, this becomes an obstacle to [God's] general oikonomia, one should again refer to custom and follow the Fathers who have managed [the Church]". The "custom" to which Basil refers was current "in Asia", where "the management of the multitude" had accredited the practice of accepting baptism by heretics. In any case, Basil justifies "economy" by FEAR THAT TOO MUCH AUSTERITY WILL BE AN OBSTACLE TO THE SALVATION OF SOME {emph added]. In Latin versions of the New Testament, and in later ecclesiastical vocabulary, the term "oikonomia" is very consistently translated as "dispensatio". In Western canon law, however, the term dispensatio acquired a very definite meaning of "exception to the law granted by proper authority" [I expect this is how most Roman Catholics would interpret it--SLK]. The text of Basil quoted above, and innumerable references to oikonomia in Byzantine canonical literature, CLEARLY INTERPRET IT IN A WIDER SENSE {emph added]. What is at stake is not only the exception to the law, BUT AN OBLIGATION TO DECIDE INDIVIDUAL ISSUES IN THE CONTEXT OF GOD'S PLAN OF SALVATION FOR THE WORLD [Emph Added]. Canonical strictures may someties be inadequate to the full reality and universality of the Gospel, and by themselves do not provide assurance that, in applying them, one is obedient to the will of God. For the Byzantines--to use an expression of Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos (901-07, 912-925)--OIKONOMIA "IS AN IMITATION OF GOD'S LOVE FOR MAN" AND NOT SIMPLY AN "EXCEPTION TO THE RULE" [Emph added]. Occasionally, oikonomia--whether the word itself is used or not--becomes part of the rule itself. Canon 8 of Nicaea, for example, specifies that Novatian bishops be received as bishops whenever the local episcopal see is vacant, but that they be accepted as priests or chorepiskopoi, when a Catholic bishop already occupies the local see. In this case, the unity and welfare of the Church are concepts which supersede any possible notion of the "validtity" of ordination outside the canonical boundaries of the Church, and oikonomia--i.e., God's plan for the Church--represents a living flexibility extending beyond a legalistic interpretation of sacramentl validity. Oikonomia, on the other hand, plays an important role in Byzantine marriage law. The law, as we shall see later, aims fundamentally at expressing and protecting the notion that the unique Christian marriage, a sacramental reality, is projected--"in reference to Christ and the Church" (Eph 5:32)--into the eternal Kingdom of God. Marriage, therefore, is not simply a contract, which is indissoluable only while both parties remain in this world, but an eternal relationship not broken by death. In accordance with St. Paul (1 Cor 7:8-9), second marriage is tolerated, but not considered "legitimate" by itself, whether it is concluded after the death of oone partner or after a divorce. In both cases, it is tolerated twice only "by economy", as a lesser evil (while a fourth marriage is excluded). Of its nature, oikonomia cannot be defined as a legal norm, and practical misuses and abuses of it have frequently occurred. Throuhout its entire history, the Byzantine Church has known a polarization between a party of "rigorists", recruited mainly from monastic circles, and the generally more lenient group of Church officials supporting a wider use of oikonomia, especially in relation to the state. IN FACT, OIKONOMIA, BECAUSE IT PERMITS VARIOUS WAYS OF IMPLEMENTING THE CHRISTIAN GOSPEL PRACTICALLY, IMPLIES CONCILIATION, DISCUSSION, AND OFTEN, UNAVOIDABLY, TENSION [Emph Added]. By admitting representatives of the two groups in the catalogue of its saints--Theodore the Studite, as well as the patriarchs Tarasius, Nicheporus and Methodius; Ignatius as well as Photius--the Church has given credit to them all, as long as it recognized that the preservation of the Orthodox faith was their common concern. In fact, NO ONE IN BYZANTIUM EVER DENIED THE PRINCIPLE OF OIKONOMIA; rather, everyone agreed with Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria (581-607), when he wrote, "One rightly can practice oikonomia whenever pious doctrine remains unharmed" [Emph Added]. In otehr words, oikonomia concerns the practical application of Christian belief, but never compromises with truth itself.
>>>I did not mean to mislead you, or anyone else, regarding the source of the article that I posted, but it is not my own. It is from Catholics United for the Faith, I included a link to the article and was going to leave it alone at that, but I did not know how to make it an “active” hyperlink. So I apologize for the confusion, if there was any.< << Dear Bob, I was aware of whence it came. I, too, cannot figure out how to paste hyperlinks into the little window. If anyone knows how to do this using Apple's Safari browser, let me know. >>>but it also pointed to the ‘universality,’ of the ban on contraception.< << Well, as with many things the originate in the Latin Church, it is "universal" in the West; i.e., by presuming Western definitions, categories and concepts, it presumes that these are congruent in all theological Traditions--but, as we have seen, they are not. To use an example in the theology of marriage, the West "universally" affirms the indissoluability of marriage in the lifetime of the partners, but allows for unlimited sacramental marriages after death, while we would allow remarriage, whether after death or divorce, ony in a non-sacramental rite under "economy". Yet, to read the CCC, you would think that the Latin theology of marriage applies to all Catholics. Which may be why Eastern Catholics have been forced to write their own catechetical handbooks. >>>What I am trying to understand is exactly what you mean when you say that you are an Orthodox in communion with Rome?< << To that I will say that I agree with Patriarch Lyubomir of Kyiv, who said, "Between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics, there are no theological disagreements"; and with His Beatitude Gregorios III of Antioch, who said, "I am an Orthodox Christian--with a plus: I am also in communion with the Church of Rome. Finally, I will say that I concur fully with the Zoghby Initiative, which says (I paraphrase from memory here), "I profess all that the Orthodox Church believes and I acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome within the limit recognized in the first millennium". >>>As an Eastern Catholic I can appreciate wanting to preserve the eastern Tradition, spirituality, etc., but to then say we are free to disagree with Rome on what it considers a “De fide” doctrine is nonsensical.< << I suppose I ought to annoy you further by saying I have no real time for the doctine of purgatory nor for the immaculate conception of the Theotokos--both of which are also "de fide". But I consider the former to be utterly alien to the Byzantine theological and spiritual tradition, and the latter to be irrelvant in light of Byzantine understanding of ancestral sin. Of course, since neither ever comes up liturgically, they have no effect on my beliefs or my spiritual life, because of lex orandi lex credendi. The key point is this: Tradition is an integral whole; you cannot arbitrarily graft bits and pieces of one Church's Tradition onto that of another Chruch without doing violence to the whole. I will be the first to admit that Rome sends out mixed messages, which leaves it to our own conscience to determine which one to take. I choose to take at face value Rome's assertion that it wants us to recover the fullness of our Tradition, our entire patrimony--our own unique liturgy, theology, spirituality, doctrines and disciplines, as Pope John Paul II put it (Ecclesia in America). And if I take that seriously, I cannot admit to any attempt to circumscibe that Tradition in order to make it congruent or acceptable to Latin doctrine and sensibilities. Since I also take seriously Rome's ecumenical outreach to the Orthodox, and our vocation (appointed by John Paul II) to be a beacon to the West and to the East, I have to take seriously Rome's statements that communion with Rome will not require the Orthdodox to compromise on their Tradition--"Neither subordination nor assimilation, but true communion in the Holy Spirit". And if we cannot be true to Tradition, who are already in communion with Rome, how can we expect the Orthodox to consider Rome's offers as anything but rank hypocrisy? Father Lawrence Cross, who teaches at the Catholic University of Australia, points out the difficulty of our position in his "Easter Christianity: The Byzantine Tradition", but he calls for us to resist all impositions on our Tradition, even to the point of disobedience to Rome. I also stand with that statement. For it isn't so much the individual issues that matter, but the underlying principles behind them. If Rome does not allow our bishops the freedom to exercise their oikonomia; if it imposes an alient sacramentl theology on us; if it requires us to abandon a fundamental concept such as theosis (which cannot coexist with the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, let alone Anselmian vicarious atonement, or the doctrine of purgatory), then our very existence as independent Churches is a mockery, and we should listen to those Orthodox who tell us to make up our minds, and either become RCs or join the Orthodox Church. Our existence is only justified by our adherence to Tradition and our work towards Christian unity. Once that unity is achieved, I think we should fold our tents and go back to the houses whence we came. >>>With all due respect to Fr. Meyendorff he was, after all, a private theologian, who undoubtedly thought that he was putting further the proper Orthodox perspective, but absent an Orthodox consensus how do we know he is correct? < << Correct how? And for whom? In the absence of a consensus, one must apply oikonomia. For us, kicking this up to Rome is not an option. >>>The Eastern Church has the right to our own theology, but implicit in that is not the denial of a ‘De fide,’ doctrine of the Roman Church. < << Why not? And where do you draw the line? If we do what you wish, then we are accepting latinization of the soul, even as we abandon latinization of the ltiurgy. >>>It seems that one of the primary arguments of the Catholic Church in regard to contraception is that by frustrating the marital act, the couple does NOT bear witness to the life of the Trinity (which Fr. Meyendorff rightly points out is the function of the sacrament). Why is that the case? Because the couple that uses contraception in a real sense withhold themselves one from the other, in the life of the Trinity there is no such withholding. Anyway, that is my two cents, and I apologize in advance to any and all persons that I may have unintentionally offended.”<<< Again, Bob, this argument points to means, not to effects. And, as I told you in my very long post, the "tradition" of the Latin Church--and all Christian confessions--prior to the 20th century was that ANY attempt to limit procreation was in some way sinful. Now, the advantage of the application of oikonomia is that it deals with the problem in a personalistic manner (I notice that your link's logic explictly denied the legitimacy of personalism in this area), while recognizing that it falls short of the mark. An Eastern Christian with an Eastern appreciation of the nature of sin would recognize that there is no inconsistency here: the antinomies must be held in tension with each other so that the theological ideal is upheld in a manner consistent with the Church's obligation to shepherd souls.
It seems to me that this is a communion in name only. To truly be ecumenical is not to say that we are in communion, but agree to disagree on substantial issues. If that is the case, then why dialogue? The Lutheran or the Presbyterian might as well say the same thing — we disagree with Rome, nevertheless we are in communion with her. It begs the question, why be in union with Rome when you have fundamental disagreements that, according to what I am reading, go the heart of the Gospel?
Be that as it may, this maybe a discussion for another thread.
>>>It seems to me that this is a communion in name only.< << Well, that's uniatism for you. So how much of a communion was it when Latin Catholics were not allowed to receive communon from Eastern Catholic priests (Metroplitan Andrij (Sheptytski) of blessed memory had to get special permission to give the Eucharist to his parents at his ordination Liturgy--and then, it had to be done afterwards, in private, using a presanctified Host that had been sanctified by a Latin priest)? Or when my own children were prohibited from receiving in a Latin Church because they were "below the age of reason" (last time I ever went to one of those!)? Or when Latin women were strongly discouraged (if not prohibited) from marrying Eastern Catholic men (but not vice versa)? Or that, even today, Eastern Catholic children attending Latin parochial schools are being enrolled in confirmation classes (and sometimes even being confirmed by Latin bishops)? Communion is a two way street, but Rome sometimes acts as if it is not. For instance, why is it that there are more married Latin priests in the US today than there are married Eastern Catholic priests? And why is it that Eastern Catholic Churches can only elect their own bishops within the "historical" territory of their patriarchates, but not here in America, while Rome gets to appoint Latin bishops all over the world? Fair is fair: if Patriarch Lybomir cannot appoint the Ukrainian Archbishop of Philadelphia, maybe Pope Benedict should not be allowed to appoint the Latin bishop of Lviv? There is a lot about the existance of our Churches that is uncanonical. Our very existence is uncanonical. Our very existence is in fact tinged by an "original sin", the sin of schism, for one cannot bring about unity by further dividing the Body of Christ--but that is what was done when we broke away from our Orthodox Mother Churches. That we have a parallel hierarchy is uncanonical and an affront to the Orthodox. They see us, rightly or wrongly, as existing to woo their faithful away from their adherents--and for 300 years, that was indeed the point. They accused us of being "uniates"--Trojan horses, Orthodox on the outside, Latin on the inside. Why? Because Rome imposed upon us beliefs and practices incompatible with our Tradition. Now, or at least since Vatican II, Rome says, "Be Orthodox in all things", but at the same time, tries to add the caveat, "Except when we say no". It shouldn't and it can't work that way. Vatican II's Decree on the Oriental Churches repudiates the notion of the praestantia ritus latini (priority of the Latin rite), but the Curia Romana frequently acts as if still exists. Well, as frequently happens when Church theory hits Church reality, things get messy. Nobody--not our bishops, not the Curia, not the clergy nor most of the faithful, have even begun to wrestle with the implications of what Rome has told us to do. Don't blame me if I take it seriously. >>> To truly be ecumenical is not to say that we are in communion, but agree to disagree on substantial issues. If that is the case, then why dialogue? <<< There are no theological issues of substance on which Orthodox and Catholics disagree. Don't believe me? Ask Patriarchs Gregorios and Lyubomir (actually, I have). Areas of apparent dogmatic disagreement are not really issues of dogma. Allow me to use a syllogism (I'll wash my hands afterwards): A dogma is a belief that must be affirmed for salvation. Those who do not uphold dogmas are heretics. Heretics are outside the true Church. Therefore, a true Church can not teach heresy. Since this is doctrinally and theoretically correct, I pose a question: In the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism, the Orthodox Churches are identified as "true Churches", in distinction from the Protestants, who only have "ecclesial communities". If they are true Sister Churches, which have maintained the fullness of Holy Tradition and are fully sufficient for the salvation of their members (cf. the Balamand Statement), then they must not hold heretical positions. But these Churches reject the doctrine of purgatory, the doctrine of the immaculate conception, the Augustinian notion of original sin, the impermissability of remarriage after divorce, the permissibility of unlimited sacramental marriages for widowers, and of course, the infallibility of the Pope. The Catholic Church allows its faithful to receive the Eucharist from priests of the Orthodox Church (and if you don't think that there are thousands of Eastern Catholics who are doing just that, you haven't been around long). It allows the Orthodox to receive from our priests (and many do). One does not offer the Eucharist to heretics, nor does one allow one's own faithful to receive from heretics. The Catholic Church has also foresworn all efforts to proselytize the Orthodox. Yet the Orthodox reject many things that Roman Catholics are supposed to accept as "de fide", or dogmatic propositions. What does this tell us? One of two things: either Rome is playing an amazingly cynical, duplicitous game with the Orthodox that endangers the souls of both Catholic and Orthodox Christians; or--those things that are widely regarded as "de fide" are not in fact universal at all, but merely doctrinal expressions particular to the Latin Church. And here, it is useful to follow the advice of Pope John Paul II, to distinguish between the unchanging content of doctrine, which reflects a deep and transcendent truth; and the historically, culturally and linguistically variable and conditioned expressions of that truth. It is that approach which makes possible the joint Christological statements Rome has entered with the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East, an approach that does not require Rome to repudiate the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, but which does not require the other parties to affirm them, either--recognizing that in substance, the believed the same things but expressed them differently. Reduced to the essence of the truths they express, it is possible to reconcile all doctrinal differences. On the state of the soul after death, all we know is what the Fathers affirmed: that a period of purification is needed before entering the presence of God, and that prayers for the dead are efficacious. That's doctrine. Purgatory, Toll Houses, and anything else, are merely theological speculations (theologumena), which are permitted provided they do not contradict Holy Tradition. One can follow a similar path with almost every disputed doctrine. All the present problems exist because one particular Church (guess which one) decided, unilaterally and without consultation with other Churches, to elevate its own theologumena to the level of universal dogma. Now, of course, there is a lot of backtracking (compare medieval or Tridentine treatises on doctrine with modern statements out of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). How to tell what is really "necessary" and what is not? For a Byzantine it's easy: if it is in the Liturgy (the whole liturgy, not just the Divine Liturgy, which is all most Eastern Catholics know), if it's in the Typicon, then it's necessary. Anything else is optional. I am a rara avis. I was baptized directly into the Byzantine Catholic Church without any prior association with it, either ethnic or familial or marital. I enered it in 1996, after the issueance of Orientale Lumen and the Liturgical Instruction. My catechesis spoke of papal infallibility not at all; of purgatory not at all; of the immaculate conception, not at all (though I do observe the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne, and wish it was moved forward one day, as it should be). Since my pastor and my instructors didn't think it was important, neither did I. I still don't. As to why dialogue: There is only one issue of substance--the nature and perquisites of the Petrine Ministry as excercised by the Bishop of Rome. And, frankly, that's a matter of Church governance, not theology. This needs to be resolved in order for formal communion to be established. Frankly, the Fathers would not have considered this issue sufficient to break communion, because they did not see the office of the Pope as central to the Christian faith, and neither should we. The Petrine Ministry is at the service of the Church, not vice versa. When it becomes a scandalon to unity, it must evolve, not the Church. Which is precisely what Pope John Paul called on all of us to do--help find a new mode for the definition of the Petrine Ministry that aids rather than inhibits unity. This canonical issue must be resolved for formal communion to be restored. Part of that effort is restoring to the Catholic Church the ecclesiological model that admits to the existence of a communion of Churches that are free to pursue their own Traditions without being impeded by other Churches. At the end of the day, Canon of the Holy Apostles No. 34 has to be the model for Church unity. And my position within the Catholic Church is consistent with that commitment. I may just be a bit early, is all.
A few people have raised the objection that NFP = artificial contraception, therefore why not just contracept? This argument may seem sound, but it is specious. With NFP the couple is working with nature, and according to Church teaching, must be open to life if they should conceive. Also, in this method the couple, through mutual consent, agrees to forgo the pleasure of sex through ascetical means. I really see no correlation to this couple and the couple that pops a pill, and then engages as often as they would like. The latter couple puts an artificial barrier between them, the former does not. The latter couple trades natural relations for anti-natural sex, the former does not. The latter couple may have a good reason to not want children, but the use illicit means to achieve that goal, the former does not. Perhaps it is due to the limit of my finite mind that I don’t see the parallel between these two hypothetical couples, but I fail to see why following the natural fertility cycle that God has given to (most) woman is akin to using pharmaceutical to alter that cycle?
What is seems not to be apparent to some member’s of Christ Church is readily apparent to the culture at large. We see this in the modern sports culture, where “performance enhancement” drugs are being used, and those who use them are being stripped of the titles that they win (see for instance the case of Tour De France winner Landis who tested positive for high testosterone levels, and had his trophy taken from him). Congress has launched in investigation into MLB, and Barry Bonds, who is chasing the official home run record, is at the center of the controversy. If it is proven that he took steroids I believe that MLB would erase his name from its record book, but even if it didn’t there would always be an asterisk by his name in the minds of most people. Why this outcry against performance enhancing drugs? Because people instinctively understand that if you are using a foreign agent to help you perform you are cheating, and it wasn’t really “you” who won the competition, or set the record. Rather, it was the artificial means that you pumped into your body that enabled you to go beyond what your natural self would have been able to. So our society has decided that this type of cheating is not only unfair, and those you engage in it should not be held up for esteem. That is so not only because of the cheating aspect of it, but because of the message that it sends out to the culture, to young marginal athletes who are looking for an edge to compete in the major leagues. So they turn to performance enhancing drugs to enable them to do more than they otherwise could. The result? Ruined lives, illness, and death.
In like manner, if through a sort of nebulous oikonomia, the Church “cheats” the procreative aspect of the congenial love then what message is it sending to the culture? It is the Church job to be salt and light to the world, a calling with brings with it great responsibility. The secular world will not think in terms of oikonomia, rather it will continue to use contraception for purely hedonistic reasons, marriage will continue to be destroyed, and people will continue to get abortions when their method of contraception fails. What about the fact that most contraption pills are abortifcents? People will continue down the slope of uncritical acceptance of homosexual marriage (hey if John and Jane are having neutered sex then why can’t Steve and Tom?). What of the poor side effects to woman who use contraception? What of the view of sex being an end in and of itself, with woman being objectified while the pornography industry booms? If we say there is no correlation to these things by the widespread acceptance of contraception then we deceive ourselves. Our President has just come out in support of the morning after pill, does anyone really think that the past 40 years contraception on demand did not set the stage for this acceptance?
Bob,
Thanks for your post. I promised some pointed questions if you defended NFP but rejected all forms of AC and here they are. Please understand, I am asking so that I can better understand the Catholic position and not to condemn it.
As I understand Catholic teaching, even NFP is not licit under any and all circumstances, but only when a justifying reason exists and, perhaps, after pastoral counseling. What if the reason justifying the use of NFP is that pregnancy would kill the mother? NFP is either sufficiently effective to avoid pregnancy or it is not. If it is, then the couple is really not open to life. If it is not, then the couple is risking the life of the wife to the extent NFP leaves them open to life. Yet the risk to her life is what justified using NFP in the first place. If they are not really open to life and have a compelling justification to use NFP, why may they not further increase the efficacy of the conception prevention by using a condom (which is, of course, not an abortifacient)? If only NFP is permitted, but if it still presents an unacceptable risk to the wife’s life, is the couple’s only available option total abstinence and is that not a burden which the Church has laid on them which they cannot bear (or at least, many couples may not be able to bear it), leaving them exposed to temptation to sin to such a degree that they cannot resist?
It seems to me that once the Church accepts that some circumstances justify NFP, then what is specious is to say that they must use a method that leaves the couple “open to life” when that lack of efficacy may risk the life of the wife when other, non-abortifacient methods, may enhance the efficacy of NFP. If NFP, on the other hand, is perfectly efficacious, then the couple using it, by definition, are already not open to life and the use of other non-abortifacient methods which are no less open to life than NFP should also be permissible.
This is my only objection to the Catholic teaching. I agree with your assessment of the impact on widespread, indiscriminate use of contraception. I do not advocate indiscriminate use of contracption and to the extent NFP is used absent extreme circumstances believe it is not licit.
Finally, given more than 75 years of approval of contraception and its use by the vast majority of Christians of our age, including most members of both my wife’s and my families and ourselves, I do not believe its use negates one’s salvation because those from our time have been deprived the teaching that contraception is sinful. The point is not the condemn those who have or are using contraception without some justification, but to make them aware that prior to the 20th century, its use was considered gravely sinful and to cause them to consider the moral implications of its use. I certainly am not the one to turn to for advice as to when it is permissible, that it the appointed task of clergy, but seminaries have a responsibility to make their students aware of the Church’s historic position on contraception and to train them to provide appropriate guidance. My statements about pastoral counseling are not intended to condemn pastors who have not provided this guidance, but to say that folks like me are not the ones who should be giving such advice.
GL, thanks for the reply. Let me start by first saying that I know woman who are alive and well today that had children after they were told that another pregnancy would kill them. NFP is not 100%, which is one reason why the couple needs to be open to life. Also condoms aren’t permissible even though they are not abortafent. They frustrate the marital act, and are therefore illicit. NFP does not stop the marital act, which is the difference. Also it should be noted in the example you gave that condoms aren’t full proof, so it sounds like if this couple needs to 100% sure then they should abstain, or they should trust in God.
Here is an article that my friend Tom Nash wrote a few months ago when it was rumored that the Vatican was going to change its policy in regard to condoms when one of the couple had aids. This may answer the question better than I could.
http://www.catholic.org/views/views_news.php?id=19836&pid=0
>>>NFP is not 100%, which is one reason why the couple needs to be open to life.< << But neither are artificial means of contraception; and with the improvement of techniques, modern NFP can be just as effective. So, when you reach the point of 90%+ confidence in any methods, just how "open" to life can they be? >>>Also condoms aren’t permissible even though they are not abortafent. They frustrate the marital act, and are therefore illicit. <<< Hypothetical question: A man contracts HIV through a blood transfusion (it still happens, especially in the Third World and Eastern Europe). Do you: (A) recommend that he use a condom when having sex with his wife, (B) recommend that he have unprotected sex with his wife; or (C) recommend that he and his wife abstain from all sexual relations? Expound on why your recommendation is the "morally justified" one, and consider the likely consequences of your choice.
Bob,
I read the web page to which you provided a link. It was very informative. Thanks.
You said in your reply to me:
[C]ondoms aren’t permissible even though they are not abortafent. They frustrate the marital act, and are therefore illicit. NFP does not stop the marital act, which is the difference.
Without being too graphic, I hope, is it the Church’s position that an exchange of fluid is necessary for the marital act to not be frustrated? If that is the case, why would not a non-abortifacient method which did not block the exchange of fluid but did to some degree inhibit conception be permissible? What if the efficacy of this AC method was no greater than NFP, so that couples using it were no less open to life than users of NFP?
James, in an earlier post, raised the issue of whether I consider contraception “intrinsically immoral.” I do not. What I believe raises moral issues is the use of contraception for the purpose of limiting family size when no overriding justification exists for so doing. Not being either a medical doctor or a pastor, I cannot provide an exhaustive list of what such justifications might be (and I doubt doctors or pastors could either), but life of the mother, suffering of any potential child, and, perhaps, extreme poverty come to mind. Desire for more material things and better education for the children who are procreated are not, I believe, sufficient justifications. And, of course, I do believe abortifacient methods of contraception are intrinsically immoral. My wife and I used the pill for several years and have repented of it.
Here, perhaps, I fall into the same approach Stuart has taken as to tradition, that extant writings do not universally condemn contraception. As I read what has been written during the first 19 centuries of the Christian era, I do not see any of those fathers addressing the hard cases at all, much less in a condemning manner. What they seem to me to condemn is the use of abortifacients (which Stuart has noted) and contraception in general which is undertaken for selfish reasons. I understand that the Catholic Church has a different understanding of the tradition, of course.
What I believe should be done is for denominations and communions to provide guidance, at least as starting points for pastoral counseling, for when AC and NFP are permissible and when they are not, just as T.S. Eliot recommended 75 years ago. I readily confess that this is just my very uneducated opinion.
>>>Without being too graphic, I hope, is it the Church’s position that an exchange of fluid is necessary for the marital act to not be frustrated? If that is the case, why would not a non-abortifacient method which did not block the exchange of fluid but did to some degree inhibit conception be permissible? What if the efficacy of this AC method was no greater than NFP, so that couples using it were no less open to life than users of NFP?< << You mean like vinegar, or lemon juice? Or how about the couple just take a nice long, hot bath together beforehand? Raising scrotal temperature destroys sperm motility and reduces male fertility by a significant amount. Combined with proper feminine hygiene using an acidic substance probably reduces the chance of conception to near zero--and it's all natural. >>>What I believe raises moral issues is the use of contraception for the purpose of limiting family size when no overriding justification exists for so doing. <<< Pretty much the Eastern Christian position in a nutshell. The question then devolves to one of who decides what constitutes and overriding justification. If not the couple, then who?
The question then devolves to one of who decides what constitutes and overriding justification. If not the couple, then who?
Stuart,
I have recognized for sometime that our positions are not really that far apart, but your question does point out one of the aspects of your position with which I have trouble — I think. Of course, the couple decides, as do even Latin Rite Catholic couples (you have totally confused me as to the obligations of Eastern Catholics) who reject their Church’s teaching.
The question is not who decides, but who or what can provide proper guidance. Eliot’s concern was that if couple’s decide for themselves with no pastoral guidance that they will always be able to justify what they want to do. He recognized that the Church had an obligation to provide a moral framework in which the decision is to be made and an outside authority who could raise objections to a couple’s being too liberal in identifying a justification. The question, then, is not who decides, but what circumstances provide adequate justification.
If you and I were to sit down and discuss it, we might not be too far apart in our views as to what constitute justifying circumstances, but I certainly am not qualified to express views on that subject to which anyone should give much weight. I am only calling on those who are qualified in Protestant denominations to provide such guidance. The tragedy of the situation in Protestantism is that most of the laity (and many of the clergy) are unaware that there is even a moral issue to consider and that as recently as 80 years ago everyone understood that. (And, please, flee the temptation to inform me that no one in any Protestant denomination is so qualified. :-) )
>>Pretty much the Eastern Christian position in a nutshell.>>
I can only tell you that this is not the position of my pastor, who is Eastern Catholic, and there are other eastern Christians who agree with Humana Vitea, so I think it wise to not paint with such a broad brush.
>>>I can only tell you that this is not the position of my pastor, who is Eastern Catholic, and there are other eastern Christians who agree with Humana Vitea, so I think it wise to not paint with such a broad brush.<<< Insofar as it is not something on which the Fathers spoke with finality, one is left with the broader principle of oikonomia to resolve the differences between ideal and actuality. Also, Bob, it is necessary to recognize that Eastern Catholicism includes a very broad spectrum of opinion, belief and practice. There are some like me, who are effectively Orthodox in every respect but one. On the other extreme, there are those who are truly "uniates" in the perjorative sense of the word, "Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite". And then there is the big, gooey middle of people who really don't give it much thought, one way or the other. Be aware though, that of all the Byzantine Catholic Churches, the Ruthenian is, overall, the most latinized in its mindset (even when its liturgical practices have been reformed), in part because of the history of this particular Church, its two major schisms, and the reaction of those who remained. Overall, it is the least ecumenical at the level of the clergy and the hierarchy (the people, on the other hand, can be very ecumenically minded, but don't expect the same from the priests or bishops), and the most likely to mouth Roman Catholic doctrinal positions without any attempt to mediate them through the lens of Eastern Christianity.
Dear Stuart,
Not being either Roman Catholic or Orthodox, I don’t really have a dog in this latest fight. But it does seem to me personally, as both a point of logic and of personal relation (in the Christian sense) that there is much point in your claim to be in communion with the see of Rome if you find it so objectionable in so many ways and constantly have so much ill and so little good to say about it. That isn’t much of a communion.
I also don’t see that you can justly define your own relation to that see in the unilaterial way that you have, where you make the determinations of what you will accept and reject from Rome. Rome has a say in that as well if it is truly a communal relation, and I simply do not believe that the documents you cited can be construed to that end. But I may be wrong, Rome being a very complex labyrinth. If you can cite specific, explicit, plain statements from Vatican issued documents that say, in black and white, that Eastern Rite Christians can be in communion with the See of Rome while rejecting crucial doctrines that the Magisterium has declared to be de fide, I for one would be most eager to know of and see them.
Is anyone here familiar with the arguments set for in The rhythm method and embryonic death, which raises the issue of whether NFP may itself have an impact similar to Plan-B, that is, embryoes may be created but find themselves in a hostile environment. How does this article effect your thinking about the use of NFP and the relative merits of the use of nonabortifacient methods of AC versus NFP? Is the points made by the author specious or do they have merit?
>>>Not being either Roman Catholic or Orthodox, I don’t really have a dog in this latest fight. But it does seem to me personally, as both a point of logic and of personal relation (in the Christian sense) that there is much point in your claim to be in communion with the see of Rome if you find it so objectionable in so many ways and constantly have so much ill and so little good to say about it. That isn’t much of a communion.<<< In the first millennium, the Fathers valued unity in the essentials of faith, and did not erect stumbling blocks of secondary and tertiary issues. As the Church was seen as koinonia, the maintenance of koinonia had priority, since Christ enjoined Christians to be "One, as I and the Father are One". The Fathers knew that divisions in the Body of Christ were sinful, but sometimes necessary. However, they discerned legitimate and illegitimate reasons for breaking communion, and to their mind, the only one that was fully justified in all cases was when one group held truly heretical beliefs that made unity in the faith impossible. Ecclesiastical disputers were sometimes unavoidable, but needed to be resolved quickly, while schism mired in the personalities of individual hierarchs were never proper. Matters involving ritual or disciplinary usages were not considered sufficient reason to break communion, though, sadly, as the Church moved into the second millennium, it was precisely these peripheral issues that were the proximate cause of the Great Schism. In my relations with the Church of Rome, I see no fundamental differences in faith. We profess the same Creed (even the Latin Church has ditched the Filioque for interecclesial use), we celebrate the same sacraments, we share the same Body of Christ. We may interpret the sacraments in slightly different manner, we may have different disciplinary standards. None of these affect the core of our communion--and resisting the imposition of one Church on another in these areas is both proper and in itself not sufficient to break communion. Much of what Rome has declared de fide over the centuries evolved in an ecclesiological and theological vacuum. That is, from the late Middle Ages through Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church taught and believed that it was coterminous with the Church of God, outside of which was undifferentiated darkness. Eastern Catholic CHURCHES, in the sense of independent, autonomous ecclesial entities which possess by right (vice dispensation) did not even exist until the Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches; before then, there were only Eastern "rites"--ritual adjuncts to the Roman Catholic Church. In such an evironment, it is not surprising that de fide declarations of the Holy See should be written entirely from a Western perspective and take no notice whatsoever of the existence of the Eastern Traditions. It would not have mattered in any case, given the praestantia ritus latini, the canonical principle that the Latin rite, being the rite of the One True Church and thus the most perfect expression of Christian worship and spirituality, should have precedence over any other rite when there was a divergence in usaqge or expression. But for that same reason, things written by and for the Latin Church may or may not have applicability to the Eastern Catholic Churches. To take a very simple example, various Western councils declared de fide that the transformation of the elements occurs at the Words of Institution. This is very different from the position of the Eastern Churches both Catholic and Orthodox, which hold that the entire Liturgy is a single consecratory act, and that an essential element of this is the descent of the Holy Spirit at the Epiclesis. Now, on the one hand, the Roman Canon doesn't even have an explicit epiclesis, and on the other hand, there are some Eastern liturgies that don't even have an Institution Narrative (e.g., the Liturgy of Addai and Mari). Going further into this area, we find that the Latin Church has declared that the priest celebrant stands "in persona Christi", another concept missing in Eastern sacramental theology. For this reason, when administering the sacraments, the priest in the Latin rite generally speaks in the first person, while in the Eastern rites, the priest being but a instrument of the Holy Spirit, speaks in the third person. Are we to assume, then, that the Eastern Catholic Churches have to make their liturgical and sacramental theology conform to Latin norms? Most of what the Latin Church has declared over the past thousand years has been concerned exclsively with Latin Church issues, yet in its exclusivity, the Latin Church has declared, unilaterally, that its declarations are "ecumenical". Today, because of the recognition of the legitimacy and equality of other Traditions, of the equality in grace among particular Churchces, there has been a "relativization" of the second millennium councils and their teachings, a general recognition that very little of what they have taught applies outside of the Roman Church. The main dispute now lies in determining what those few issues are, and how they are to be applied. Key documents for understanding the problematic relationship between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches would include: 1. Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum) 2. Instructions for the Implementation of the Liturgical Provisions of the EECO (1996) 3. John Paul II's Pastoral Letter Orientale Lumen (1995) 4. John Paul II's Encyclical Letter Ecclesia in America I also heartily recommend the Proceedings of the Orientale Lumen Conferences (1996-2005), available through Eastern Christian Publications. Each conference has dealt with some essential issues affecting relations between the Western and the Eastern Churches, including primacy, the structure of the Church, Marian doctrines, "uniatism" and the implications of Pope John Paul II's letter.
Stuart, or anyone,
This is pretty off-topic, but what, briefly, is the Eastern understanding of indulgences?
>>>This is pretty off-topic, but what, briefly, is the Eastern understanding of indulgences?<<< The concept of indulgences grows out of the medieval Latin concept of temporal punishment for sins. That is, when one sins, there is not only an affront against God that requires His forgiveness, but also a violation of divine law that incurs a penalty that must be worked off. This is closely related to the concept of purgatory--that the souls of the departed require purification before entering the presence of God, and that in this purification they suffer the pains of eternal fire in an "intermediate state" between heaven and hell. As the doctrine evolved through the Middle Ages, various sins incurred a range of temporal punishments to be worked off through penance (these became highly systematized and codified in books called "penitentiaries". As one might expect, the penances incurred included prayers, fasting and pilgrimmages, but so onerous were many of these that the average person had not much chance of getting ahead of the game, hence purgatory was the place most would end up, working off their temporal punishment after death. Because certain types of penance were not practical for the average person (e.g., a pilgrimage to Jerusalem), Western bishops began authorizing substitutions for the prescribed penance, which would earn one an 'indulgence". This became associated with the concept of the "Treasury of Merit", i.e., that the saints in heaven had more than enough blessings to go around, and so could "bank" them and distribute them to souls in need. Indulgences could be earned voluntarily, thus gaining one access to the Treasury of Merit against future requirements. At first, indulgences were earned by following a penitential regime, but over time abuses crept in, so that cash substitutes or donations in kind were accepted. By the Renaissance, the system had become a scandal. The doctrine and practice was reformed by the Council of Trent and remains part of Roman Cathoiic spirituality to this day. Eastern Christianity, with its very different conception of sin and salvation, never developed this kind of systematic, juridical outlook. Something superficially similar to indulgences actually existed but served a very different purpose. In Eastern Christianity, it is not uncommon for the process of confession to be separated from the Mystery of Reconciliation. That is, one confesses to a spiritual father who may or may not be a priest (i.e., a monk or even a nun, or even an ordinary laymen of manifest holiness). One would then receive a spiritual discipline equivalent to a penance (but usually more personalized) from the spiritual father, who, however, cannot grant absolution. Instead, one goes to one's parish priest, but in order for the priest to know that one has completed the ascribed penance, one got a rescript from the spiritual father. This would be shown to the priest, who would then perform the Mystery of Reconciliation. The short answer, then, is that Eastern Christianity knows no doctrine of purgatory or practice of indulgences. Among Eastern Catholics, especially the older ones, they remain popular beliefs, but are ranked as theologumena--acceptable personal theological speculations, akin to the Toll Houses and other theologumena popular in the East. When I first became a Byzantine Catholic, the announcement of plenary indulgences for a particular pilgrimage or prayer service were still being made, but in the last seven or eight years, the practice has been suppressed without actually being repudiated. What does the East hold as doctrine in this regard? Very little, as a matter of fact. First, that the soul does requre purification after death. Second, that prayers for the departed are efficacious (and indeed, form a part of almost every liturgical service). Third, that there will be a judgement on the Last Day, at which the righteous will sit on God's right hand, and the wicked shall be cast into darkness. Beyond that, everything is considered speculative. The mainstream though is that the departed fall asleep while awaiting judgement. The sleep of the righteous is peaceful and undisturbed, while that of the wicked is wracked by evil dreams foreshadowing their eventual fate.
I daresay that it is not only Eastern Catholics who agree with Paul VI and Humana Vitea, but there are Orthodox Christian who do as well. Here is the statement of Patriarch Athenagoras who was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 1948 to 1972:
“We assure you that we remain close to you, above all in these recent days when you have taken the good step of publishing the encyclical Humana Vitae. We are in total agreement with you, and wish you all God’s help to continue your mission in the world.”
Since, the East does not speak with one voice in this matter, we shouldn’t say that they do. Given the testimony of the Fathers of the Church (it should be noted that there were barrier methods in the Hellenistic world of which the fathers were a part, but you don’t find them writing in favor of them as an alternative) I stand with the tradition of the Church, as did Paul VI. While we bemoan the widespread dissenting and the down right heresy so prevalent in the Church today we need to ask ourselves, do I dissent? In his book “What Went Wrong with Vatican II,” Ralph Macinery makes the case that the problem wasn’t with the council; rather the problem occurred when Catholics felt that they could dissent from the teaching of Humana Vitea. The problem is once you start dissenting where does it stop? You may think that you have a right to contracept so you do it, and tell people proudly that you do… Someone hears that and thinks they don’t need to listen to the Church about abortion, the Virgin Birth, or as we have seen recently with woman on the boat, women’s ordination. Really there is little difference between these two positions, it simply a matter of degree, but the mindset is the same.
I think the link to the article I gave answered the question about if condoms can be used when a married person contracts AIDS. I think it is important to note that they may come a time in ones married life when you won’t be able to have sexual intercourse with your mate. If for instance you partner becomes disabled, paralyzed, or in a persistent vegetative state. We all recall the Terri Schiavo case were she remained in an almost totally unresponsive state for many years, until the government that allows contraception (and by doing so already confirms that there are some lives that aren’t worth living), abortion, etc. killed her. Obviously, although she was incapable of intimacy we would all agree (I hope) that she was still a person, and the wife of the Michael Schiavo. In the case of AIDS it is much the same – with one caveat, that being the danger that the infect person poses to their partner, even with a condom, as condoms do not always prevent the spread of this disease.
>>>I daresay that it is not only Eastern Catholics who agree with Paul VI and Humana Vitea, but there are Orthodox Christian who do as well.< << Of course there are. Fr. Meyendorff agreed with it as well. It is not a question of agreement, but of how to receive and implement the teaching--with legalistic rigor, or with due recognition for human frailty and the fallen state of the kosmos. >>>I think the link to the article I gave answered the question about if condoms can be used when a married person contracts AIDS. I think it is important to note that they may come a time in ones married life when you won’t be able to have sexual intercourse with your mate.<<< When that time comes, one should deal with it prayerfully. However, Paul said it is better to marry than to burn, and in this case, your overly rigorist approach would consign many to burn needlessly. If ever there was a case for oikonomia, it is this (one could even apply the principle of double effect, if one is inclined to follow a legalistic approach). As Archbishop Joseph said frequently, celibacy is an heroic vocation that can only be taken up voluntarily by those who have been given that gift, and it is not within the authority of the Church to impose it on other unwillingly. Indeed, the Eastern Churches are extremely leery of celibacy outside of a monastic setting, aware of how difficult a way it is even for those in a structured community with a rigorous ascetic rule of prayer. Now you blithely fall back on an abstraction to impose it willy-nilly on many. It is something I find very obnoxious about the Western Christian mindset--rules are rules, follow them or be damned. But people are not abstractions, and at the core of the Eastern way is a personalistic relationship with God. I said before, and I now repeat, it is the obligation of the Church's stewardship to treat each person as unique (something that gets a lot of lip service when it comes to the life of the unborn), but in practice the Western Church either abrogates its stewardship altogether (refusing to set any norms ormake any affirmative statement) or chooses it impose it in a mindless, juridical manner on people without any consideration of their needs. Remember what we pray in the Liturgy: Make straight our path according to the needs of each; sail with those who sail, travel with those who travel, heal those who are sick, O Healer of soul and body. A doctor doesn't just blindly prescribe medicine to patients he doesn't know, and likewise the Church cannot prescribe spiritual medicine wholesale--each prescription must be tailored to the individual illness.
Humana Vitea called contraception intrinsically evil. The Patriarch said he agree with Humana Vitea, oikonomia does not dispense with the moral law.
>> Now you blithely fall back on an abstraction to impose it willy-nilly on many. It is something I find very obnoxious about the Western Christian mindset–rules are rules, follow them or be damned<< Yes, the moral law is black and white (e.g.. thou shalt not murder means just that). I am sorry if you find that obnoxious – there were plenty of times that Jesus Christ, while He walked this earth gave a hard teaching, e.g. NO divorce, and his Apostles stood there dumfounded, and could only say “if that is the case it is better not to marry.” They didn’t later ratify his teaching on the basis of human frailty. Let me ask you this, do you know believe the eastern teaching of theosis? Can we not overcome sin, with the help of God’s grace, and become more and more an image of the image?
amendment to “do you know believe the eastern teaching of theosis?” should be do you not believe the eatstern teaching of theosis?
Also double effect does not apply since it is an intrisically evil act.
>>>Also double effect does not apply since it is an intrisically evil act.< << Really? Making love to one's wife is intrinsically evil. Thank you, Tertullian. >>>Humana Vitea called contraception intrinsically evil. The Patriarch said he agree with Humana Vitea, oikonomia does not dispense with the moral law.< << First, contrary to what many Catholics think, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not the Orthodox Pope (that would be Shenouda III of Alexandria, in any case). Second, oikonomia does not dispense with moral "law" (though the concept of moral "law" is itself alien to Eastern Christianity); rather, it is an exception to a precept for the purpose of saving souls. Note, for instance, that the Orthodox Church considers remarriage to be a violation of what you would call the "moral law", but it allows remarriage "under economy" for precisely the same reason that it would allow a married couple to use contraception. >>>Yes, the moral law is black and white (e.g.. thou shalt not murder means just that). < << Of course it does. Oikonomia cannot extend to an absolute precept. But when you do things like equate murder and abortion with wearing a condom, it merely makes your whole position untenable. Integrism is the error of treating all things as equally important, when in fact some things are essential, and others are not. >>>Let me ask you this, do you know believe the eastern teaching of theosis? Can we not overcome sin, with the help of God’s grace, and become more and more an image of the image? <<< The first thing they should have taught you, Bob, is that theosis is a process, not an event. It is not something that comes upon one as an epiphany, but is accomplished only with much prayer, metanoia and tears. The first principle must be a recognition that not all people start from the same place in their pilgrimmage, and not everyone advances at the same pace. I know that in most Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic parishes, the ancient ascetic disciplines are honored more in the breach than the observance, and that "officially" the Metropolia follows the same rules as the Roman Catholics (the LCD effect in action). But, if they ever bothered to explain the rules of fasting and why we fast, you would have been told that one who tries to live according to the full rigor of the regulations is setting himself up for a fall. You must crawl before you can walk, walk before you can run. Therefore, in all ascetic disciplines, one begins by crawling. In fasting, it might be consistent abstinence from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays, to which over time, one might add eggs and dairy products, then ultimately, fish with backbones, wine, and oil. In Lent, you would also tailor your fast to what is reasonable for you to accomplish, and continually strive to do better each year. If so with food, the most basic of the passions, then also with regard to sex within marriage. Both gluttony and lust are considered the "fleshly" passions, and as such, they are also considered to be the least severe (which is why we are told to deal with them, first). Your approach says that one must immediately and without exception live according to the ideal of Christian life (which, inter alia, is not really the use of natural family planning, but a total absence of family planning), regardless of its effect on the other aspects of one's spiritual development. Suppose a husband and wife feel they have no choice but to go your route (we are still talking about the hypothetical HIV case, here), and because they are not yet spiritually prepared to live in total continence (and in many cases, may never be ready), they begin to act uncharitably towards each other. Other passions are unleashed--lust, as one or both begin to look outside of their marriage for the satisfaction of their physical desires; anger at the other, as the cause of the dilemma (or worse, anger at God as the cause of their woes); envy, of other couples who live "normal" lives; greed for material things or other sensual experiences to fill the void in their lives, even pride (in their own self-control) or vainglory (in the high opinion others have of them for their discipline). None of these are consistent with the purpose of celibacy or sexual continence, and are, in fact, worse spiritual ailments than the one you condemn so readily. From the standpoint of a steward of souls, one would be negligent in simply telling a couple in this situation that they MUST live in continence or run the risk of passing a deadly communicable disease. It's situations like this one that caused Chrysostom to lament "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops". For they are responsible not only for their own souls, but those of all who are consigned to their stewardship.
>>First, contrary to what many Catholics think, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not the Orthodox Pope. << I know he is not, father John Meyndorff was.
Thanks for the definition of Theosis, but I already knew it was a process, for those who didn’t it was good to clarify.
So what is your prescription when one of the couple is physically unable to perform (PUP)? Are they called to heroic virtual, and if they are then what is the difference between them and the AIDS couple? I don’t mean this jokingly, if we must make concessions for the hypothetical aids couple it seems only right that we do the same for the PUP couple.
>>>So what is your prescription when one of the couple is physically unable to perform (PUP)?< << Was this before or after they got married? Because the Church usually holds inability to consumate to be an impediment to marriage. >>>Are they called to heroic virtual, and if they are then what is the difference between them and the AIDS couple?<<< Ya can't do what ya can't do (though you would probably be scandalized if I said there is relatively little that one partner can't do to give pleasure to the other, whatever his or her own limitations). The main difference is, the couple with AIDS CAN DO, but you won't let them.
>Because the Church usually holds inability to consumate to be an impediment to marriage.
I don’t recall anything in the Westminster Confession stating that (although I’ll be glad to be corrected in that regard if memory leads me astray).
After the marriage..
I am well beyond the point of scandal.
>>>I know he is not, father John Meyndorff was.<<< Father John would be scandalized, considering the respect with which he always held the Papacy, despite his disagreement with its own definition of its perquisites. Besides, Father John reposed in the Lord back in 1994, a great loss which we all feel today, My point, Bob, is that Orthodoxy dogmatizes very little--the fundamental tenets of the faith and very little more. If it isn't in the liturgy, it's definitely something secondary. When you think about it, this is a very wise way to go, for every time something is defined "dogmatically", all the premises on which that dogma is based must likewise become dogmatic propositions, and then the premises which underlie them, until, reductio ad absurdem, EVERYTHING is dogma, no room is left for development or individual speculation, and the Church dies of sclerosis. The Fathers were aware of this, and warned against a desire for excessive precision and comprehensiveness. They were far more tolerant and pluralistic than their modern-day descendants, who seek creedal certitude rather than accepting what the Church offers--hope in response to trust.
>>>I don’t recall anything in the Westminster Confession stating that (although I’ll be glad to be corrected in that regard if memory leads me astray).<<< It might not be in the Westminster Confession, but it is in the ancient canons, and in the Latin Church, inability to consumate is positive grounds for anullment.
>>Father John would be scandalized, considering the respect with which he always held the Papacy, despite his disagreement with its own definition of its perquisites. Besides, Father John reposed in the Lord back in 1994, a great loss which we all feel today. < < I was not being serious. >>My point, Bob, is that Orthodoxy dogmatizes very little–the fundamental tenets of the faith and very little more. If it isn’t in the liturgy, it’s definitely something secondary.<< I understand what you are saying, but there are obvious limits to this approach. For example the liturgy, nor scripture, or tradition says anything about cloning, but I am sure that Orthodoxy is "dogmatically," opposed to it. It seems to me that you are arguing for the allowance of contraception in a vacuum. You don't have fathers to support your view, only some modern day Orthodox theologians, who may not have been giving the mind of the Church. God bless,
Does Christian Charity allow you to put your partner at risk for contracted a deadly disease (e.g. AIDS)? Is it true that the AIDS virus can infect people who are using condoms? Is so, what would Christian Charity have you do?
>>>Does Christian Charity allow you to put your partner at risk for contracted a deadly disease (e.g. AIDS)? Is it true that the AIDS virus can infect people who are using condoms? Is so, what would Christian Charity have you do?< << Depends on my partner, doesn't it (my partner would be my wife, by the way). The risk of contracting heterosexual HIV turns out to be pretty low for people who avoid certain peculiar practices; with a condom, it's pretty close to nil, especially if the infected party is on anti-retroviral drugs. It's certainly better to use one than to not use one. As to whether total abstinence is better for a particular married couple, neither you nor I nor the Church can make that decision for them. Go read the Rite of Crowning, and ponder what it conveys to them. As king and queen and priests of their own domestic realm, bearing growns of victory, of kingship, and of martyrdom, they are endowed with the same vocation to stewardship within their sphere as the bishop has in his. It is their charisma to make serious moral decisions in light of their own situation. If we presume to make it for them, then we are imposing on the free will that is part of their divine inheritance. >>>I understand what you are saying, but there are obvious limits to this approach. For example the liturgy, nor scripture, or tradition says anything about cloning, but I am sure that Orthodoxy is “dogmatically,” opposed to it.<<< On the contrary, a close reading of the liturgy can be used to make the case against it. The problem is, few people these days really take liturgy seriously, and in the case of most Byzantine Catholics (especially Ruthenians) liturgical experience is limited to the Sunday Divine Liturgy and the Great Feasts.
>>On the contrary, a close reading of the liturgy can be used to make the case against it.<< But not explicitly.
>>>But not explicitly.<<< The Eastern Churches have never had such a low opinion of the laity as to be as relentlessly diadactic as the Roman Church has become. They believe that, having been sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit, you should have the power to discern the message without being beaten over the head with it.
While I find Bob’s and Stuart’s exchange on Eastern Catholicism fascinating, I would like for the two of you (and others) to read the article regarding the potentially abortifacient aspects of NFP to which I posted a link and give me your views on whether it is hogwash or raises some valid points. If the latter is the case, then wouldn’t the use of condoms actually be more pro-life, if you will, than the use of NFP? I am not a medical doctor, but the arguments presented in the article strike me as plausible. Afterall, this is a thread on Evangelicals and Contraception, not the exact relationship between Eastern Catholics and Rome. ;-)
>>>While I find Bob’s and Stuart’s exchange on Eastern Catholicism fascinating, I would like for the two of you (and others) to read the article regarding the potentially abortifacient aspects of NFP to which I posted a link and give me your views on whether it is hogwash or raises some valid points.<<< From a biologial perspective, from what I read, it seems on fairly solid ground, though it fails to note that the uterus is by it nature hostile to conception, for the very reason of making conception difficult. This helps ensure that only healthy ova and the most vigorous sperm are fertilized, and that only healthy blastocysts are able to implant themselves in the uterine lining. The factors affecting the receptivity of sperm, egg and uterus are manifold, and can include everything from basal temperature of the man and woman, to the time in the woman's period, to what she's been eating (which can alter the Ph of the uterus). Apparently, even without human planning or intervention, the vast majority of ova go unfertilized, whether a woman has sex or not. Of those that are fertilized, a large percentage (I forget the precise number, but I believe it is more than half) are not implanted, and either die in the uterus or are expelled with the woman's menstrual flow. Even after implantation, there is a high percentage of early stillbirths, most not recognized as such by the woman, but simply written off as an abnormal discharge (doctors find out about these when the woman is given a blood test that reveals her hormone levels). What does this mean? Frankly, I don't know. This aspect of sex and conception remains a mystery from a theological perspective. God knows ever person from his mother's womb, life does begin at conception, and every embryo has a soul, yet somehow God allows an ungodly percentage of them never to be born. Why? I don't know, but I presume that somehow this is part of God's plan of salvation, the reason for which is beyond our comprehension pending the Parousia (when all will be made clear). What are the moral implications of natural family planning (the term "rhythm method" is misleading and anachronistic, since modern NFP is a bit more scientific in its approach, and has a much higher success rate than merely watching the calendar)? From my perspective, repeatedly stated, the Christian ideal is to make no effort to control either the number or spacing of children, leaving that entirely up to God. For many couples, with good and valid reasons, this ideal cannot be lived in their given circumstanes, in which case, oikonomia says that they can limit the number and spacing of their children, provided the means by which they do this does not involve the deliberate destruction of unborn life. From my perspective, it is intention which is critical, not methods, within the broad boundaries laid out. Does NFP entail the "deliberate" destruction of an unborn life? I hesitate to say yes. As I noted, the probability of any given egg and sperm resulting in live birth are already remote (the kind of culling of the weak that fish, insects and turtles encounter after hatching, we undergo in utero). In using an IUD, a woman employs technology that is specifically designed to prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs, with a high degree of confidence. When one limits sex to a period outside of the optimum for fertilization, that's slightly different. To make an analogy, usng an IUD is like loading the dice against the embryo, while NFP is more akin to a good pitcher throwing the batter a really good curveball. With the former, there is no possibility of success, and the user of the IUD (or the owner of the loaded dice) knows this. He intends the object of his interest to lose. The pitcher, on the other hand, matches his skill against that of the batter, and both have an equal chance. The fact is, eggs can be fertilized and implanted at any time during a woman's period, and women who have sex without regard to family planning get pregnant at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of their fertile periods; some even get pregnant during their menses, and yet still manage to have a healthy baby. Apparently, there is no hard and fast rule here. On that basis, I would have to say that NFP is not abortifactant in the commonly used sense of the word, and thus is an "acceptable" form of family planning. But, I hasten to add, the term "acceptable" itself is redolent of oikonomia, for what is "accceptable" often falls short of the ideal. In that falling short, NFP is itself hamartia, and a cause for metanoia, a turning back to God, a recognition of our frailties. Whether hamartia extends beyond that depends on whether the reasons for using NFP are consonant with God's larger intent, something that only the couple can discern. By the same token, using an "artificial" method that is not abortifactant, seems to be to be on the same moral plane, or close enough as makes no difference. Why one uses it, not that one is using it per se, is the critical issue (especially now, when proponents of NFP claim that it is as or more effective than condoms and diaphrams, and almost as effective as the pill). That said, what would be the reasons for preferring an artificial method? Off the cuff, I would include menstrual irregularities that make tracing ovulation unreliable; the need for a highly consistent level of confidence due to the health of the woman (her choice, Bob--you can't force heroism on anyone), irregular work and travel schedules that bring the couple together only sporadically. . . Again, only the couple can discern what is right for them. That's part of the charism we give them in Crowning. In good apophatic manner, the Church is better at laying out reasons why one shouldn't use artificial contraception, or any at all for that matter. The desire not to have children at all, so that one may enjoy an unemcumbered life, is one of them. There may be others, but I am not inclined to think of them at this moment.
>>What does this mean? Frankly, I don’t know. This aspect of sex and conception remains a mystery from a theological perspective. God knows ever person from his mother’s womb, life does begin at conception, and every embryo has a soul, yet somehow God allows an ungodly percentage of them never to be born. Why? I don’t know, but I presume that somehow this is part of God’s plan of salvation, the reason for which is beyond our comprehension pending the Parousia (when all will be made clear).<< This is exactly correct. Let me just add that I don't see the article as being very persuasive against NFP. There is a big difference, in my opinion, between using artificial means to prevent conception, and not using them. There is no guarantee that a pregnancy will result even if there is nothing being done to put it off (i.e. contraception or NFP). The difference is that by using 'natural' means you are cooperating with nature, not pereverting it. If you extend the argument given in this article to euthanasia, or abortion, you would have grounds for either practice to continue unabated. The percentage of people that die is 100%, therefore it is ok to 'pull the plug,' or kill babies in the womb. I find the argument to be specious, in as much as the Church has always said that God is the author of life, and only He has the authority to determine the begin, and length of any individual's life.
>>her choice, Bob–you can’t force heroism on anyone.<< It could be argued that Christ forced heroism on people (e.g. martyerdom), but that is another story. After careful consideration of our disagreement I think it really stems from, what I see, as an individualistic approach to the subject. For instance, if you quote Fr. Meyendorff to back up your claims, that is okay. If I counter with quote from the former Ecumenical Patriarch you say he isn't the Pope (i.e. that he could be wrong, and the Orthodox are not bound by his decision). If I look to the fathers you say I can't because the situation they were writing against differs too much. If I quote the Pope he is instantly rejected as a source of authority, given his legalistic/scholastic anti-eastern mindset. So I am left with no authority that I could quote that would make any difference in the debate. It is then pointless to continue to debate the topic. It is obvious, I think, that your mind is made up. I don't see it as entirely consistent, but nothing I say will be able to change your mind (who am I after all compared to the unbroken tradition of the Church, the EP, or the Pope?).
Bob and Stuart,
Thanks to each of you.
I suppose if a couple were to order their sex life based on the article I cited, they would limit their periods of intimacy to times when conception was for all practical purposes impossible or when conception was most likely to occur and result in a successful pregnancy. Another way to approach it, however, is to say that a man and woman can follow nature and have intercourse when they want, but once they determine to manipulate nature, which arguably is what NFP does and what AC certainly does, then they must take into consideration the likelihood that embryonic death may result from their manipulations.
At the end, I don’t know what to make of the points raised in the article, but it does raise issues which those considering and/or using NFP should ponder. If the assumptions are true, it does raise the question of whether those using NFP should be condemning those using AC methods which are no more, and perhaps less, likely to result in conception and embryonic death than does NFP. To me, it raises more questions than it answers.
I can’t tell you how beneficial everyone’s posts on this topic has been in helping me think through the issues involved. My own views are still being developed. Thanks for helping me with that process.
After posting my last comments, I read my first comments to this thread. I still am where I started. Contraception is normatively sinful, but the law is made for man, not man for the law. If abnormal circumstances exist, contraception may be permissible. Examples of when I believe mercy should apply to negate the normal application of the prohibition against contraception would be when the life of the potential mother would be endangered by a pregnancy, a potential child is likely to suffer greatly if conceived (significantly more than the normal suffering of life), and, perhaps, extreme poverty. There may be others. In such abnormal circumstances, the couple should seek pastoral counseling so that they fully understand the moral issues which are raised by their circumstances and any decision they may make. A simple desire to limit one’s family size, however, is insufficient to overcome 1900 years of uniform teaching based both in Scriptural exegesis and natural law that contraception is gravely sinful.
And with this post, I end my comments to this thread. Thanks again for challenging me to think through my views.
>>>It could be argued that Christ forced heroism on people (e.g. martyerdom), but that is another story.<<< Christ forces nothing. Man is absolutely free. Unless you can accept those two statements, you will always be ambivalent about Eastern Christianity. If you'd like a nice little (99 page) primer on Eastern Christian moral theology, I recommend a catechist preparation guide "Shown to Be Holy: An INtroduction to Eastern Christian Moral Though", put out by God With Us Publications. It's used by all the Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in the U.S.
>>Christ forces nothing. Man is absolutely free. Unless you can accept those two statements, you will always be ambivalent about Eastern Christianity.<< I do accept these two statements, but you like to play a game of semantics that is unnecessary -- "Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Mat 16:24 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven." Mat 10:32-33 Seems like Jesus is forcing heroic virtue on people who want to be his followers, no? Of course, people are free to reject him, and not acknowledge him, or take up their cross, but you knew that wasn't what I was talking about. I have read the book, thanks. You may want to read the book Jesus, Peter, and the Keys to see the patristic arguments for Papal jurisdiction, and infallibility since you want to give out book recommendations. There was an Eastern Deacon involved with the book, David Hess, but no doubt he is ignorant of all things eastern, as are all we poor unenlightened Ruthenian Latinized Byzantine Catholics!!!!!
>>>Seems like Jesus is forcing heroic virtue on people who want to be his followers, no?< << But then there is the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom: Let every pious and God-loving soul Enjoy this splendid and luminous Feast: Let every faithful servant Enter joyfully into his Master's joy. Let the one who has borne the burden of fasting Now receive his pay; And the one who has toiled from the first hour, Let him obtain his due reward! If anyone came after the third hour, Let him gratefully join in the feasting; And the one who tarried until the sixth hour, Let him not be afraid of missing anything! If there is any who waited until the ninth hour, Let him come unhesitatingly; And even the laborer of the eleventh hour, Let him not fear for his sloth. For the Lord is generous, And receives the last even as the first; He gives rest to the worker of the last hour Even as to the one of the first. He has pity on the last, And serves the first; He rewards the first And gives freely to the last. He receives the fruit of labor, And accepts good intentions; He honors the deed, And praises the effort. So, enter into your Master's joy: You the first and you the last Will receive the bounty. Come together, you rich and you poor; Abstinent or indulgent, honor this Day. You who have kept the fast, And you who have not, Be joyful now: The table is laden, Take of it all of you without scruple. There is enough of the fatted calf for all; Let no one go away hungry. All of you, come and taste the banquet of faith, All of you, enjoy the abundance of mercy. Let no one bemoan his poverty, For the Kingdom of God has appeared to us; Let no one complain of his sins, For Pardon has risen from the tomb; Let no one be afraid of death, The Lord's death has delivered us. He has destroyed it by enduring it; He went down into the Abyss And stripped the Abyss; He made it bitter For having tasted his flesh. That is what Isaiah foretold: The Abyss, he said, was made bitter When it met you beneath the ground; It was made bitter because it was reduced to naugt; It was made bitter because it was fooled; It was made bitter because it was annihilated. It seized a corpse, and lo! discovered God; It took hold of earth, and behold! encountered heaven. It captured the seen and fell before the unseen, O Death, where is your sting; Abyss, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are put down; Christ is risen, and the demons are crushed; Christ is risen, and the angels sing for joy; Christ is risen, and life has overcome; Christ is risen, and the tomb is emptied of the dead; For Christ the Resurrection Has become the first fruits of the dead. To Him be all glory and power, Now and ever, and unto Ages of Ages, Amen. >>>You may want to read the book Jesus, Peter, and the Keys to see the patristic arguments for Papal jurisdiction, and infallibility since you want to give out book recommendations.<<< Been there, done that. Does the phrase "tendentious reading of the evidence" mean anything? But, since we're recommending books, try Francis Dvornik, OP's classic "Byzantium and the Roman Primacy", for an objective account by a brilliant Roman Catholic scholar; and Papadakis and Meyendorff's "The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy", by two equally brilliant Orthodox scholars. Also, get the "Proceedings of the Orientale Lumen V Conference (2001)", available through Eastern Christian Publications. That particular conference addressed specifically the issue of primacy in the East and West.
The Easter Sermon of St. John is welcome, but I don’t understand the point of posting it in this context – Christ called us to heroic virtue, and while we at times don’t live up to it that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t strive to do so.
I have read Meyndorff’s essay on the Primacy of Peter, as well as Philip Sherrard’s Church, Papacy and Schism, A Theological Enquiry, and another pro-Orthodox view of the papacy (the title of which escapes me at the present time), and haven’t found them very convincing. A better balanced book, IMHO, is The Russian Church and the Papacy by Vladimir Soloviev.
The Easter Sermon of St. John is welcome, but I don’t understand the point of posting it in this context –
Sorry, but any response to that homily that begins “Yes, but …” is missing the point.
Christ called us to heroic virtue, and while we at times don’t live up to it that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t strive to do
Strive away, by all means. That should keep each of us busy enough to have little time to worry about how someone else is doing (“grant me to see my own transgressions and not to judge my brother”).
At the very least, this long exchange should make it clear that dogmatic pronouncements on the subject of contraception are not essential to “mere Christianity.”
>>>The Easter Sermon of St. John is welcome, but I don’t understand the point of posting it in this context – Christ called us to heroic virtue, and while we at times don’t live up to it that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t strive to do so.< << We must strive, but we cannot be coerced. Christ in his mercy takes the last as well as the first, honors the effort, even if it falls short. Your approach is, be heroic or be damned, which shows a failure to extend the same sort of mercy that Christ extends to all. >>> have read Meyndorff’s essay on the Primacy of Peter, as well as Philip Sherrard’s Church, Papacy and Schism, A Theological Enquiry, and another pro-Orthodox view of the papacy (the title of which escapes me at the present time), and haven’t found them very convincing.< << You wouldn't. But I'll bet you've never even heard of Dvornik, let alone read him (I also recommend his "The Photian Schism"), while you will find the tenor of Papadakis' work (Meyendorff died before it was completed) of a very diffent sort. It's an historical work, scrupulously documented (something I can't say for "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys", which is essentially apologetic in nature and polemical in tone. >>>A better balanced book, IMHO, is The Russian Church and the Papacy by Vladimir Soloviev.<<< Whooo, boy! There's much to admire in Soleviev, but the man was a space cadet at heart, and his attempts at historical-theological exegesis in the service of ecumenism leave a lot to be desired. If you would understand Soleviev's work on papacy, you have to look at it in the context of the Russian Orthodox Church of the late 19th century and the small coterie of intellectual/aristocratic theorists who founded the Russian Catholic Church (an ecclesia sui juris which has never managed to pick up many adherents, and whose members today are drawn mainly from disgruntled Roman Catholics. Worldwide, I don't think they have more than 5000 members, and I must know a good percentage of them from both the New York and San Francisco Russian Centers (why they don't have parishes here, I just don't understand). You probably never had the opportunity to meet Hegumen (now Archimandrite) Nicholas of Holy Resurrection Monastery in Newberry Springs, CA. He led a determined but ultimately futile effort to use his monastery to restore the fullness of the Eastern Tradition in the Ruthenian Church, but ran smack into a wall of resistance from our bishops (with the exception of Bishop George (Kuzma) of Van Nuys, who was fully in support of liturgical and spiritual restoration. Hassled at every turn, Archimandrite Nicholas finally gave up and transferred the monastery to the omophorion of Bishop John Michael of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church. Before he left, though, he gave a remarkable speech at Orientale Lumen V in 2001, on primacy and conciliarity in the Metropolia. Speaking of relations between the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics and the Orthodox, he might have had you in mind: "In the United States, a different set of conditions prevailed. In the past generation or two, another and equally serious problem has presented itself: the images in the mirror [i.e., the Greek Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox] have tried as much as possible to forget each other. In particular, many Greek Catholics have found refuge in their own "catholicness" (I will not say 'catholicity') and have valued this membership of the Catholic world as more important than any aspect of their Eastern identity. We are all aware of the struggle between the 'latinizers' and "easternizers' within our Eastern Catholic jurisdictions, a struggle which continues to this day, but which I have not time today to treat in any detail". To which I would add that the influx of Latin Catholics (many of whom are "refugees" seeking asylum from what they see as liturgical chaos in their own Church) into our churches, for all the benefits and gifts these people bring us as individuals, has also had a deleterious effect on our Church's ability to reclaim its proper identiy because they are unwilling or unable to accept the theological, spiritual and doctrinal elements that flow out of and through the Byzantine liturgy.
>>>Strive away, by all means. That should keep each of us busy enough to have little time to worry about how someone else is doing (“grant me to see my own transgressions and not to judge my brother”).< << Let those who have ears hear. >>>At the very least, this long exchange should make it clear that dogmatic pronouncements on the subject of contraception are not essential to “mere Christianity.”<<< Amen and amen. I am afraid, though, that some have adopted a reductionist approach to the cultural conflict that is an essential part of "mere Christianity", and see, somehow, that if only they could get their way on this, everything else would fall into place. I think human history is a bit more complex than that, and tends to point in other directions.
That being said I would like to apologize to my evangelical brothers and sisters, as well as my Orthodox ones. It was not my intent to get into an east vs. west debate. I hope though that by the liberal application of oikonomia you can forgive this affront.
I think that it is good subject to debate, and to think about especially in the current, ‘culture of death,’ that we live in. What I objected to was the ‘eastern,’ triumphal attitude that was being espoused to the detriment of my western brothers and sisters. This need not be. Bowing humbly before you I ask your pardon.
Bob,
A sinner
>>>>>At the very least, this long exchange should make it clear that dogmatic pronouncements on the subject of contraception are not essential to “mere Christianity.”<<< Amen and amen. I am afraid, though, that some have adopted a reductionist approach to the cultural conflict that is an essential part of "mere Christianity", and see, somehow, that if only they could get their way on this, everything else would fall into place.<< Alas, it was apart of mere Christianity up until the 1920's.
Stuart,
To paraphrase St, Athanasius speaking to the Arians, “Yes, but you have no fathers for your belief.”
Here this exchange must end.
God bless,
>>>”Yes, but you have no fathers for your belief.”<<< In that, of course, Athanasius was wrong, but he nicely framed the debate so it would go his way. Ante-Nicene theology is all over the map on the relation between Father and Son (and most had not even given thought to the Holy Spirit, which was left for the Council of Constantinople to resolve). So Athanasius cherrypicked his Fathers, just as Arius cherrypicked his. Also, remember please, the distance between Athanasius and the Fathers on whom he relied was about the same as that between us and those "modernists" you decry so well. Unless you believe that the Holy Spirit has deserted the Church (thus making our own chrismations meaningless), you cannot dismiss a priori a theological position because it is not mirrored in the Fathers. I recommend to you yet another one of those lovely little catechist handbooks, "Like a Stream of Living Water: An Introduction to Eastern Christian Tradition", also available through God With Us.
>>>Alas, it was apart of mere Christianity up until the 1920’s.< << But not in the way you would have it, Bob. The "ecumenical consensus", if I may use that phrase, condemned ANY attempt to control reproduction, regardless of means. So you seem rather picky about what constitutes "innovation". The more radical change is not from condemning to approving contraception, but in admitting that there might be ANY legitimate reason for limiting or spacing childbirth. >>>Bob,
A sinner<<< But not the "Least of All Sinners". I'll fight you for that one.
GL,
In reading the article you pointed out several (dozen?) posts ago, I was struck by two things.
1) The author only looks at the embryonic death issue, and by it assumes that condoms are better than NFP. On that basis, he’s correct, and would be even more correct to say that avoiding sex altogether is good because it minimizes the loss of human life. But that misses the point of the argument against condoms (that it goes against the full giving of oneself in sex). We have argued about that, and I, too, am unsure how far to take proscriptions of various birth control methods. But in that article, it’s a straw man.
2) As soon as you leave the condom out of it, the author’s assertion in his conclusion that the action/omission is weak falls apart, because he claims that it is too a weak distinction when one uses it between IUDs, on the one hand, and NFP/ the Pill on the other. Whatever his estimates of embryos killed per pregnancy, they only get worse when you poison the fertile period and continue to have sex then. And since you are actively attempting to reduce the chances of embryonic survival, you are taking a step in the wrong direction.
Like Stuart, I don’t think we can probe too deeply into the mystery behind this one. We know that intercourse between a married couple is a good thing. We know that God values children from their conception. We can determine, based on what we know about marriages, how different techniques of birth control may (or may not) cause ethical problems. Based on embryonic death, we rule out the Pill and IUDs. The rest are decided based on other criteria.
>>>Based on embryonic death, we rule out the Pill and IUDs. The rest are decided based on other criteria.<<< One wonders, for instance, about a hypothetical male pill (which would either inhibit sperm production or alter the composition of seminal fluid in a manner that destroys sperm motility and viability. Men, inter alia, can already do this by taking a long hot bath before having sex. Sperm are extremely temperature sensitive, and thrive best at temperatures below 98.6 degrees. That's one reason why the scrotum is outside of the body, to keep the little rascals cool. But gettng into a tub heated to 110 or more will quickly cook their goose, leaving the metaphorical gun shooting blanks, Does that constitute an "artificial" or "natural" method of contraception, inquriing minds wantt to know. Would the rigorists among us prohibit bathing before sex? Mandate cold showers only? Ban tight underpants? Is there a truly Christian answer to the question of boxers or briefs?
Dear Stuart,
Having been deeply involved in another blog, I’ve been absent from this one, and a lot has accumulated in my absence. Briefly —
1) I would never deny that there are examples of legalism in Western theology (and also among some Eastern Orthodox too, I might add), and in fact I’ve indicated that I think Humane Vitae has a tendency toward that. What I object to is the wholesale categorization of Western theology as essentially legalistic. It is not, as Prof. Esolen eloquenlty pointed out in making his fourfold distinction.
2) Another problem I see is that you seem simply to identify ALL Western theology with Roman Catholic theology ( or a partiuclar strand thereof). Many Eastern Orthodox apologetics assert that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (with Anglicanism slotted in the latter, I suppose) are really just two peas in the same pod, suffering from the same problems and errors, etc. That’s a gross oversimplification and distortion, both theologically and historically, to put it mildly. I don’t know if you subscribe to this view, but if you do, then there really isn’t any space for a constructive debate between you and your Western interlocutors, because the West has then been put into a completely false single stereotypical box.
3) With regard to the authority of Rome, I thnk that we are working with different definitions of “de fide.” I would like to know your definition. I was using it in a narrower sense to mean not just something accepted on faith, but rather an article of faith generally necessary to salvation. A point such as consecration occurring upon reciting the words of institution would obviously not fall under that heading. That may not be its usual sense, and if so I’ve created inadvertant confusion.
4) Where I would disagree with you most vigorously is on your claim that the authority and nature of the Papacy is a matter of church governance rather than a theological issue. Rome has repeatedly made the contrary crystal clear, to my knowledge. (RC brethren invited to chime in here!) The Papacy’s claimed unique capacity to issue infallible doctrinal pronouncements ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals is not a matter of jurisdictional authority, but a theological issue of the very nature and essence of the church. That cannot simply be defined away. Again, if Rome has explcitly said in an authoritative document that this involves NO theological issue, only one of jurisdicitional authority, I’d be most interested in seeing that in black and white.
5) I don’t know if you have any inclination to comment on my previous lengthy post (on non-sacramental re-marriages, proof-texting, licitness of means, etc.), but if so it’s still of interest to have your response to that.
>>>I was using it in a narrower sense to mean not just something accepted on faith, but rather an article of faith generally necessary to salvation.< << If you use it that way, then in fact there are very few de fide propositions, and most of them are included in the Creeds and the acts of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. I base this on the following facts: 1. Rome recognizes that there are "true Churches" outside of the Catholic communion that have valid orders and sacraments, that Rome has stated are "fully sufficient" to ensure the salvation of their adherents. Rome does not proselytize members of these Churches, allows their members to receive the Eucharist from Catholic priests without renouncing their adherence or making any profession of faith outside of the Creed, and it also allows its own members to receive the Eucharist from priests of these non-Catholic Churches. In addition to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, this extends to the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians, Syrians, etc.) as well as to the Church of the East (Assyrians, Malabarese). 2. One cannot define as true Churches ecclesial entities that profess heretical beliefs or reject essential elements of the faith that are truly "de fide". Even more so, one cannot extend the Eucharist to persons belonging to such entities, and one certainly cannot allow one's own faithful to receive from them. Yet Rome does this, and goes further, in the case of Chaldean Catholics and the Assyrian Church, in allowing formal communicatio in sacris (i.e., the faithful of both Churches can receive freely from the other, even though the clergy cannot because formal communion has not been established). 3. All of these non-Catholic Churches reject various teachings that the Latin Church has ruled de fide. The most obvious, of course, is papal infallibility and universal ordinary jurisdiction, but there are a whole range of issues, including purgatory and indulgences, immaculate conception, and the formal Scholastic definition of transubstantiation. Why these were regarded as de fide has to do with historical developments within the Latin Church and not broader Church history per se. >>> Rome has repeatedly made the contrary crystal clear, to my knowledge.< << Rome is wrong. Often is, you know. And if it was a theological issue, then, of course, denying the truth of the papal prerogatives as defined by Rome would be heresy. One cannot recognize the sacraments of heretics (baptism being an exception "by economy", as was discussed earlier), much less recognize heretics as "true Churches". Words are one thing, actions quite another. Romes actions long ago ceased to be consistent with the words it uses in regard to papal prerogatives. I will give as an example the doctrine of the temporal supremacy of the Pope, as first enunciated in the Decretus papae of Gregory VII Hildebrand. According to the doctrine, formally adopted and restated by general councils of the Latin Church as well as various papal encylicals, the pope is superior to all emperors, kings and princes; he can appoint or depose them; and he can bind and release their subjects from their allegience. This was taught "de fide" by the Church for about 800 or more years. It was used by them to place countries under the interdict and thereby shape the internal and external policies of secular states (of which, of course, the Papacy was one). However, the doctrine gradually fell into contempt and then into disuse: After Pius V declared Elizabeth Tudor to be an excommunnicant heretic and deposed, he absolved all English Catholics of their allegience, theoretically freeing them to rebel against their sovereign. Two things happened: first, all of Europe yawned; second, English Catholics sent effusive statements of loyalty to Elizabeth. From that time on, the doctrine of papal supremacy had about as much credibility as a UN cease fire resolution. It was the last time a pope ever used it. In 1956, I believe, Pope Pius XII quietly shelved it, saying that, while it may have been necessary and probably inevitable given the political and religious situation in the Middle Ages, it was not a part of the eternal deposit of faith, but a culturally determined artifact whose time had come and gone. One must needs see the Papacy in that light as well: its form, function and perquisites have changed over the centuries in response to the needs of the Church, because the Petrine ministry is one of service, and not one of domination. Put another way, the Pope exists to serve the Church, not the Church to serve the Pope, and when the current form of the Petrine ministry becomes a scandalon to unity, then it is the Papacy that must change. Pope John Paul II recognized this repeatedly, and asked for the assistance of all Christians in finding new definitions and modalities of primacy that would make the Petrine ministry acceptable to all. Sadly, few have taken him seriously. More to be taken seriously are the various agreed statements emerging from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and from the Joint International Theological Commission on Catholic-Orthodox Unity. Though the dialogue has had its ups and downs, several key issues have been settled, and one of them is that regarding the relationship between the Churches and the exercise of Papal primacy, the situation in the first millennium must be considered normative. In effect, and without saying so openly, this relativizes all second millennium general councils of the Western Church. Paul VI got this rolling in 1974, when, speaking on the 700th anniversary of the Second Council of Lyons, he did not call it an "Ecumenical Council", but rather, a "general council of the Church in the West". Thus, all such councils have been relativized in relation to the Seven Great Councils, and all of their teachings have to be considered in that light, especially as most of them, declared "de fide" involved exclusively Western issues and/or practices. That would include, of course, all teachings concerning the prerogatives of the Pope not found in any of the universally recognized councils. >>>Many Eastern Orthodox apologetics assert that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (with Anglicanism slotted in the latter, I suppose) are really just two peas in the same pod, suffering from the same problems and errors, etc. That’s a gross oversimplification and distortion, both theologically and historically, to put it mildly.<<< It is a gross simplification, but from the Eastern perspective both Protestants and Catholics work off of Augustinian premises (especially on human nature) but disagree on the implications and requirements flowing therefrom. Unfortunately, since I don't intend to write a highly nuanced historical or theological treatise here, sweepiing generalizations are sometimes necessary, with qualifications as needed.
I know I said I wouldn’t post on this anymore, but I felt compelled to bring to everyone’s attention an article in today’s Boston Globe, Alarm sounds on US population boom Report says growth threatens resources. If only I had realized the threat to the future which babies represent, I wouldn’t have made my earlier remarks against contraception. ;-)
hi
>>>WASHINGTON — The United States, now at nearly 300 million people, is the only industrialized country that has experienced strong population growth in the last decade, creating concerns that the boom and Americans’ huge appetites for food, water, and land will sharply erode the nation’s natural resources in coming years, according to a report released yesterday.<<< Also the only industrialized country experiencing significant job creation and economic growth. Could there be a correlation between this and (relatively) high fertility (2.06 births per woman, slightly less than the 2.10 "replacement" rate). Said article fails to note that population growth is almost totally due to immigration, not fertility (though the birth rate among recent immigrants is significantly higher than those of the native born). In short, just what you would expect out of the Boston Globe--half-truths, outright lies, and total cluelessness. By the way, environmentally the United States hasn't been in such good shape in almost two centuries (and in some parts, since the original English settlement--forestation in Virginia is greater now than it was when Powhattan sat on the banks of James debating whether to bash in John Smith's skull).
Dear Stuart,
Thank you for your post. I was aware of many of these points, but not the distinction in the last sentence of point 2) regarding permission for communion by laity but not clergy (a practice I find curious). I would think that the Eastern Orthodox apply a uniform discipline of closed communion to both clergy and laity, but a previous post of yours suggests otherwise (unless the EO hierarchy is simply looking the other way).
I still think you haven’t addressed a main point I was trying to make. As a non-Roman Catholic, I of course believe that the Papacy in general and certain popes in particular has erred. What I don’t see is how you can establish formal communion of an entire church body, of both laity and clergy (as opposed to allowing reception of sacramental communion by the laity across ecclesiastical communions by way of oikonomia, as just described), when one side is asserting the other to be in error on points de fide in the narrower sense that I used that term. To the best of my knowledge, Rome adamantly maintains that its understanding of the nature of the Papacy is indeed de fide in that narrower sense (while allowing, as stated in “Domine Iesus”, that other Christians belonging to bodies not properly churches in the Catholic sense nonetheless are indirectly part of it by being “subsumed” within Nicene orthodoxy.) How can two churches as churches, as communions, with integrity be in communion with one another when they do not agree on the understanding irreducible essentials (e.g. the Nicene Creed), or even what the irreducilbe essentials are?
>>>What I don’t see is how you can establish formal communion of an entire church body, of both laity and clergy (as opposed to allowing reception of sacramental communion by the laity across ecclesiastical communions by way of oikonomia, as just described), when one side is asserting the other to be in error on points de fide in the narrower sense that I used that term. <<< Well, that's the glory of Catholicism in the ecumenical era. The old Catholicism may have been pinched in its outlook and triumphalist in its rhetoric, but it was consistent. All problems concerning the uncanonical relationship between the Church of Rome and the Oriental Churches in communion with Rome are inherent in the failure of the Church to uphold consistently the canonical principles of ecclesiology, combined with a desire to redress past errors without actually admitting the error. As a non-Catholic, this probably strikes you as unusual, but it turns out to be the normal modus vivendi when we need to alter course after having declared the previous course to be true and indefectable. Can't just go and say, "Ooops, sorry!", but instead generate a cloud of opaque theological and canonical statements that prove even though we are now doing the opposite of what we are doing before, what we are doing now is in fact utterly consistent with what came before. The Catholic Church usually calls this a "clarification". s an example, you can try to find an on-line copy of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's "Clarification on the Procession of the Holy Spirit", which essentially concedes the substance of the Orthodox position, rejects the definition given at the Council of Florence, announces that the Creed without the Filioque is the only ecumenically binding symbol of faith (the Pope stopped using it in the Mass some years back, and we Eastern Catholics haven't used it for more than a decade), and blandly asserts that this has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church. Really? Glad we got that cleared up. If I had to point to the broader cause of confusion, I would look to the Second Vatican Council's recognition that the alienation of the Latin and Eastern Churches had resulted in certain deformations in each, as well as a departure from patristic norms. In its attempt to recapture the patristic spirit through "resourssement", the Church has been forced to subtly back away from many things it had been teaching "de fide" since the Middle Ages, without actually abandoning them altogether. A review of pre- and post-conciliar statements regarding the nature of the Church, or the doctrine of purgatory are illustrative. In any case, you are correct that it is confusing, contradictory, and more than a little bit hypocritical. Tridentine Latins point this out all the time, and want us Eastern Catholics to hew to very letter of Latin doctrinal statements. Orthodox often make your point word for word, and give us the "Double Zero" option: either become good Latin Catholics, or become Orthodox, because any other position is untenable. Maybe so, but we have rejected this approach, as has the Holy See, which has also given us our marching orders concerning recovery of our authentic Tradition. From my own perspective, the only reason to be Byzantine Catholic is precisely so that one can live the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition while maintaining communion with the Church of Rome. As Patriarch Peter III of Antioch did not feel that the disagreements between Rome and Constantinople were worth breaking communion in 1054, I don't feel that any of the issues outstanding between Catholics and Orthodox today are of such a fundamental nature as to create a difference in faith that would preclude communion.
James,
These words of Pope Benedict seem appropriate, Rome has not back off of its view of the Petrine Ministry, and the Pope ackwoledges that is what divides us from the Orthodox. While this is regrettable, it is the reality.
Pope: Interpretation and capacity of the petrine ministry divides us from the orthodox
Vatican City (AsiaNews) – “Interpretation and capacity” of the petrine ministry, that is the role and competence of the bishop of Rome, who is the pope, divide Catholics and Orthodox, but “we are together in the apostolic succession, we are deeply united with one another for the episcopal ministry and for the sacrament of the priesthood and we confess the same faith of the Apostles as it was given to us in Scripture and as it was interpreted by the great councils.”
Today’s words of Benedict XVI on the occasion of Mass for the feast of Saints Peter and Paul practically constituted a stand on ecumenical relations with the orthodox. As usual on this occasion, a delegation of the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople was present and they received a warm greeting from the pope. There is more which unites us than divides us, was basically what Benedict XVI said, although he did underline, both during the celebration as before the Angelus, that the “petrine ministry… cannot be renounced”. He recalled that such has existed since the time of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul; that is when Christians did not know division.
The “petrine ministry”, in the words read by the pope during Mass, is “an expression of our communion” which in essence has its “visible guarantee”. “With unity, as well as with apostolicism, is linked the petrine ministry, which visibly unites the Church in all places and in all times, defending each of us in this way from slipping into false autonomies, which too easily become internal particularizations of the Church and could thus compromise its internal independence”. Highlighting that at the end “the sense of all functions and ministries is that ‘we all arrive at unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God”, Benedict XVI turned to the orthodox delegation sent by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, to whom he extended a cordial greeting. Led by the Metropolitan Ioannis, the delegation came to our feast and participates in our celebration.
Even if we do not yet agree on the question of interpretation and full extent of the petrine ministry, we are however already together on the issue of apostolic succession, we are profoundly linked with one another on episcopal ministry and the sacrament of the priesthood and we confess the same faith in the Apostles as revealed to us in scripture and as interpreted for us by the great Councils. At this time, in a world full of skepticism and doubts, but also rich in the desire for God, we recognize once again our mission to testify together to Christ our Lord and on the basis of this unity, which is already given to us, to help the world to believe. And we ask the Lord with all our heart to lead us to full unity so that the splendour of the truth, which alone can create unity, will become once again visible in the world.” On the day on which the Church of Rome remembers its patrons, even visibly through the statue of St Peter in the basilica, dressed in a tiara and with pontifical vestments and the “net of the fisherman”, Benedict XVI told 20,000 people present for the Angelus that “the primacy of the Church which is in Rome and its bishop is a primacy of service to Catholic communion. Departing from the twofold event of the martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul, all the Churches began to regard that of Rome as a central point of reference of doctrinal and pastoral unity”.
The Pope then recalled that Vatican II confirmed that “in ecclesiastical communion, there are legitimately specific churches, with their own traditions, while however there is the primacy of the seat of Peter, which presides over universal communion of charity, safeguards legitimate differences and together keeps watch until that which is specific not only does not harm unity, but rather serves it”. “May the Virgin Mary obtain for us that the petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome is not seen as a stumbling block but as a support in the journey on the road to unity.” (FP).
The Church is willing, however, to discuss the Petrine Ministry so that it does not remain a stumbling block. John Paul II asked for dialogue on this matter, especially with the Orthodox, to see how it might function in a way that the Orthodox maybe comfortable with. So, there is room for hope!
>>>These words of Pope Benedict seem appropriate, Rome has not back off of its view of the Petrine Ministry, and the Pope ackwoledges that is what divides us from the Orthodox. While this is regrettable, it is the reality.< << Well, DUH!, Bob. Who ever said it didn't? The question is whether this is a theological or merely an ecclesiological issue. If the former, then obviously those disagree with Pastor Aeternus are heretics, and as we well know, heretics don't have Churches and valid sacraments. The Pope, as guardian of the Catholic faith, can't permit his people to receive the sacraments from heretics (sorry, all you Lutherans and Episcopalians out there), yet he allows his people to receive from the Orthodox. You can't give the sacraments to heretics, either (sorry again to all you Protestants), but we give the Eucharist to the Orthodox, no questions asked. So, to recapitulate: 1. Heretics don't have valid sacraments and orders; 2. The Orthodox reject Pastor Aeternus; 3. The Orthodox are recognized as being true Churches with valid sacraments and orders, THEREFORE: Rejection of Pastor Aeternus is not heresy. And if it is not heresy, then it is not really an issue of faith, but something else. Now, primacy is an important issue, it is true. The Orthodox do not deny this, nor do I. The real issue is the definition and exercise of that primacy within the universal Church. >>>The Pope then recalled that Vatican II confirmed that “in ecclesiastical communion, there are legitimately specific churches, with their own traditions, while however there is the primacy of the seat of Peter, which presides over universal communion of charity, safeguards legitimate differences and together keeps watch until that which is specific not only does not harm unity, but rather serves it”.<<< Indeed. Now, notice that Pope Benedict left open just how the Petrine Ministry is to accomplish charism to strengthen the brethren in unity. That is the issue under discussion. If it came to a simple matter of accepting Pastor Aeternus as the only (and dogmatic) definition of papal primacy, the entire ecumenical dialogue would simply adjourn sine die. And of course, that is not going to happen. Ask Cardinal Kaspar about it.
>>>The Church is willing, however, to discuss the Petrine Ministry so that it does not remain a stumbling block. John Paul II asked for dialogue on this matter, especially with the Orthodox, to see how it might function in a way that the Orthodox maybe comfortable with. So, there is room for hope!<<< Discussion usually means both sides give their opinions and listen to the other. If discussion is to move towards resolution, then both sides must be willing to consider the rightness of the other. In this case, that can only happen through the kenosis of both sides, an emptying of all pride, pomp and perquisites in the way that Christ, though being true God, "did not deem divinity to be tightly held, but rather emptied himself taking the form of a slave". At the end of the day, militants on both sides will have less than they want, but the Church will have what it badly needs--a universal primacy balanced with conciliarity. The ideal of primacy as jurisidction will be mitigated if not rejected; on the other hand, "Primacy of Honor" and "Primus Inter Pares" will have the kind of real meaning they had in the first millennium. To my mind, the solution is one known to the Fathers, since it was enshrined in Canon of the Holy Apostles No.34: The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit.
“Well, DUH!, Bob. Who ever said it didn’t?”
Stuart, with all do respect my comments were not directed at you, nor do I think that inflammatory remarks were called for. I do not assume to know the outcome of the dialogue, but I know that Rome still upholds Vatican 1.
GL:
Just a point, as someone who uses NFP, it is not the same thing as the rhythm method. I haven’t read the article yet, and it may make the clarification, but NFP and rhythm are fathoms apart.
Ranee,
I believe the article is referring to NFP, which is what he calls it in the text. Why he would use Rhythm Method in the title, I do not know, but I could hazard a guess. He intends it to be a pejorative of NFP. While I am reading between the lines, I believe the author is trying to defeat the arguments of those who oppose the pill as an abortifacient by hypothesizing that NFP is also an abortifacient. He raises some interesting questions that deserve pondering, but his motives can be questioned.
For someone who, unlike to the writer of the above cited Boston Globe piece, has a clue, see Gary S. Becker, “Missing Children,” from the editorial page of the Friday, September 1, 2006 Wall Street Journal. A teaser exerpt is available here, but you will need to subscribe to the online service to see it all or find a print copy.
Dear Stuart,
I’m actually well aware of Rome’ penchant for explaining away past declarations that have become inconvenient by issuing increasingly nuanced “clarifications” and “interpretations.” The problem I have is that this constitutes THE prime example of the “legalism” you so often decry as typical of the West (though in fact it is only typical of a certain strain of Roman Catholic thought). The question is whether this is morally (not to mention logically) right. For, if you take advantage of it and use it to be in communion with the Roman see, then you are being just as thoroughly legalistic as Rome. I don’t see any reasonable way around that, and I think that is the problem that Bob is having with you too.
The ball is back in your court!
Dear Stuart,
I’m actually well aware of Rome’ penchant for explaining away past declarations that have become inconvenient by issuing increasingly nuanced “clarifications” and “interpretations.” The problem I have is that this constitutes THE prime example of the “legalism” you so often decry as typical of the West (though in fact it is only typical of a certain strain of Roman Catholic thought). The question is whether this is morally (not to mention logically) right. For, if you take advantage of it and use it to be in communion with the Roman see, then you are being just as thoroughly legalistic as Rome. I don’t see any reasonable way around that, and I think that is the problem that Bob is having with you too.
The ball is back in your court!
>>>For, if you take advantage of it and use it to be in communion with the Roman see, then you are being just as thoroughly legalistic as Rome. I don’t see any reasonable way around that, and I think that is the problem that Bob is having with you too.<<< Well, the Eastern Catholic Churches--more specifically, the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church to which both Bob and I belong--is deeply riven by a division between "latinizers" and "easternizers" which is a repercussion of the tangled history of our particular Church. To explain it all would require a book, since the roots of the problem date back to the Union of Uzherod in 1646, when a group of Orthodox presbyters sought communion with Rome to gain legal and economic protection against the depredations of the Protestant Hungarian nobility. Over the centuries, because of the prevailing attitude within the Latin Church and the training of our clergy in Latin seminaries, various thoughts and practices from the Latin Church were adopted by the Ruthenian Church. When the Ruthenians came to America, they encountered opposition from the Irish-Catholic bishops of the Latin Church, who had a very distinctive vision for where they wanted the Catholic Church in America to go. They did not want peculiar looking priests in peculiar looking churches using a "funny" Mass. Above all, they did not want married priests coming to America. Things really got nasty, including an episode in which Bishop John Ireland told Father Alexis Toth (a widower to whom Ireland was denying faculties) that he considered the wives of Eastern priests nothing more than legalized concubines, Toth led a return to the Orthodox Church involving perhaps as many as half of the 250,000 Ruthenian Catholics in America (which has led wags to claim Bishop Ireland as one of the "Fathers of Orthodoxy in America"). Due to the intercession of Ireland and other American bishops, an encyclical was issued that not only banned married priests but also infant communion and the chrismation of infants at the time of baptism and a number of other Eastern practices where they differed from those of the Latin rite. Most of those requirements were tacitly waived after it became clear that most of the remaining Ruthenians would return to Orthodoxy if they were enforced, but the ban on married priests remained (and was evaded by having married priests sent over from Europe, or sending married men to Europe for ordination). When, in 1930, at the insistance of the Latin bishops in America, the ban was reiterated in the "constitition" Ea Semper, there was another schism involving perhaps 50-75,000 people, who left to form the Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese. This time, matters ended up in court due to property issues (Episcopalians, I feel your pain), leading to a great deal of bitterness that did not end (and in fact has not totally ended) until the death of most of the participants. The net result of all this is a Church in which the older generation, including the clergy and bishops, want to adhere to a very latinized version of Eastern Christianity as a marker of their "loyalty" to Rome--even as Rome directs them to restore the totality of their Eastern Christian patrimony. Beginning in 1896, Rome has issued a series of encyclicals, decrees and instructions all of which are consistent on that point: Eastern Catholics are to return to the fullness of their heritage IN ALL THINGS, reducing or eliminating all differences between themselves and their counterparts outside the Orthodox communion. In the case of Byzantine Catholics, that means recovering the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition--and that is something a lot of Ruthenians will not due. While not wanting to be "Roman" Catholics (little love lost in that direction), they refuse to be like "Themorthodox" (one word, like Damnyankee), and want to create a "third way". This went so far in the 1960s as to have Archbishop Nicolas Elko try to impose a "reformed" liturgy that would (as he put it), "squeeze the grease out of the Greeks and get the stink out of the onion dome". This was too much for most of the clergy, who rebelled and had Elko recalled (he died as Latin auxiliary bishop of Cincinnati), but before he went he managed to install his creatures in critical positions throughout the Church, and their influence lingers today (particularly in the Eparchy of Pittsburg, where Bob resides). As a result, while other Byzantine Catholic Churches--the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Romanian Greek Catholic Church--have all enthusiastically embraced the return to authentic Orthodox Tradition (I've already mentioned patriarchical statements coming out of those Churches), the Ruthenians have pointedly refused to do what Rome has repeatedly asked, encouraged and even ordered them to do. While other Byzantine Catholic Churches are making important initiatives towards reconciliation with their Orthodox counterparts, the Ruthenians remain aloof, even hostile, to any outreach with the Orthodox (much of my own ecumenical work has been done in the face of opposition from the bishops of my Church, requiring me and my associates to go over their heads to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and even Pope John Paul II himself (it's hard for an eparchial bishop to prohibit you from doing something when you can wave a letter in his faced that says, "Keep up the good work, Joannes Paulus II"), but the fact is, there is little or no communication between us and the Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox, and most Ruthenian priests seem to like it that way. Compounding the problem for us is a constant influx of "refugees" from the Latin Church, who really don't want to be Eastern Christians, but either don't like the "New Mass" or other aspects of the contemporary Roman Church. OK, everyone is welcome, but they also bring with them a militantly preconciliar attitude that is antithetical to what we are trying to achieve. Thus, when we sing the Creed, you can always count on one or two of these people to add "AND THE SON!" at the top of their lungs (as though to make a point), or to try to get the priest to lead Rosary services before the Divine Liturgy, or who complain mightily that we don't have Stations of the Cross during Lent (but who also fail to show up for Akathistos Saturday and the Presanctified Liturgies during the Fast). There are two types of latinization--latinization of action, and latinization of the soul. The latter is more insidious. Bob, in his relatively isolated exposure to all that is happening in Eastern Catholic circles, sees one particular face of it and thinks it is the definitive one. In fact, there are many faces, many different threads, all pulling in different directions trying to find a resolution to a non-canonical situation not of our making. I belong to that thread that takes all of the statements made by Rome since 1896 as sincere reflections of Rome's desires for us. I take seriously Rome's announced desire to seek reconcilation with the other Eastern Churches. I go with those where they lead, and do not worry about the implications of prior statements, even those pronounced "dogmatically" that are not consistent with the overarching goal of Christian unity. After all, this is what John Paul II said was our vocation, and in honor of his memory, I will live up to that vocation, no matter what. A Melkite Greek Catholic of Irish origin, Fr. Lawrence Cross of the Catholic University of Australia, wrote the following in his book, "Eastern Christianity: The Byzantine Tradition": Despite the latinization of many, there is no doubt that the Orthodox Church is the mother Church of the Eastern Catholics. Reintegration with her must be their final goal, and is recognized by many of their clergy and hierarchs. The task is fearsomely difficult. They must both strive to return to the Mother Church and not loose communion with Rome. They stand at the very heart of East-West reunion, and given enough charity and courage, these Eastern Catholics could become the "Cup in Benjamin's Sack" drawing the estranged brothers to self-disclosure and reunion. Their existence need not continue to be an unmovable obstacle to unity, but that is the light in which they have been cast up to the present. Given the state of the Eastern Catholic Churches, one could dispair of them being equal to the task. There are serious internal divisions, some parties desiring to adhere to the integrity of the Eastern traditions opposing other factions who favor westernization. If they are to succeed in their highest purpose, these groups must come to an understanding on a higher level. Providence may intend them to witness both to Catholicism and to Orthodoxy, showing both there is room, in a true unity of Christ's Church, for two legitimate expressions of the one faith. Among the Roman Catholics they must defened--to the brink of schism if necessary--the legitimate claims of Eastern theology, Church life and spirituality. They must reject all encroachment upon the ancient rights and dignity of the East, such as celibacy laws for the clergy. If they fail, the Orthodox will never be convinced such pressures will never be applied to them in a reunited Church. That basically is where I stand, too. The highest objective of an Eastern Catholic is to live in full accordance with the Tradition of his particular Church while remaining in communion with the Church of Rome. The tensions and antinomies in this situation are apparent, but that is mainly the fault of the Church of Rome for arrogating to herself certain perquisites and imposing certain expressions of faith upon the world that are not consonant with the Traditions of other particular Churches. Under those circumstances, it is our responsibility to take the lead in defining the acceptable boundaries of the Roman primacy, and not merely to accept them as offered to us, unilaterally, by a Church which defined them in a vacuum lasting 900 years (Bob would do well to remember that the very concept of "Eastern Catholic Church" is only about 40 years old; before then, we were, as many still perceive us, "Eastern rites of the Roman Catholic Church", a mere ritual adjunct without any independent theology, spirituality, doctrine or disciplines). Other Eastern Catholic jurisdictions have embraced this responsibility with both hands. Ruthenians still shirk it, and as a result, risk falling into irrelevance. The problem is principally one of leadership--or rather tha lack of it. The parochial attitude of our bishops stands in marked contrast to the truly evangelical and ecumenical outlook of the leaders of other Churches, particularly in the Ukranian and Melkite Churches. In the absence of any leadership whatsoever from the Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs, it is to them I look for my inspiration.
Dear Stuart,
Thank you. It’s all very interesting, and is clarrifying the issues and your views. But I find your answer ultimately unsatisfactory.
I don’t doubt that Byzantine Rite Catholics are directed by Rome to recover ALL of their Eastern heritage. (And I think it’s a good thing.) But the point is that they are still directed to do so BY ROME. They ultimately are under obedience to Rome as their patriarchal see. That means that Rome is the one that defines what constitutes that full recovery for those under its authority.
To this point, you wrote:
“The highest objective of an Eastern Catholic is to live in full accordance with the Tradition of his particular Church while remaining in communion with the Church of Rome. The tensions and antinomies in this situation are apparent, but that is mainly the fault of the Church of Rome for arrogating to herself certain perquisites and imposing certain expressions of faith upon the world that are not consonant with the Traditions of other particular Churches. Under those circumstances, it is our responsibility to take the lead in defining the acceptable boundaries of the Roman primacy, and not merely to accept them as offered to us, unilaterally, by a Church which defined them in a vacuum lasting 900 years.”
However, the Papacy claims a unique power and authority to give definitive direction to its faithful. If Rome writes and issues something with respect to its own communicants, then Rome is the one that gets to define it, since it wrote it. If you claim that you get to define it as you wish instead, then I cannot see how your position is essentially any different from the Protestant who claims the right of private interpretation of Scripture. Either that, or you read texts as an adherent of postmodernist deconstructionism.
The question is what definition of the Petrine Office is included in that full recovery. It’s all very well to say that the Petrine office should be reclaimed as it was in the first millenium. But the whole dispute is precisely about what that office was in the first millenium — whether it was primus inter pares or primus supra pares. (Forgive any fracturing of the Latin from off the top of my head.)
Rome clearly defines the issue of the nature of the Petrine primacy ultimately as a theological issue, not a jurisdictional one. And as far as I can tell, Rome clearly asserts that its definition of Petrine primacy is the one that also prevalied in the first millenium. Hence, in saying that the Byzantine Rite Churches should recover their full authentic Eastern heritage, it includes that definition of the Petrine office under what is full and authentic, and regards the Eastern Orthodox as being in that regard inauthentic and in deviation. (And if one is going to say that Rome has operated in a 900-year vacuum on this issue, then so has the Eastern Orthodox Church.)
Presumably you respond that this is precisely what is subject to discussion and resolution between East and West. Agreed. However — and this is the chief point — so long as Rome is your patriarchate, then as a matter of discipline you are obligated in principle to adhere to Rome’s position, not that of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs. If you don’t accept that, then you really should be under one of those patriarchs as a full-fledged Eastern Orthodox, and not in communion with Rome, because both sides agree that this remains a communion-dividing issue.
In short, I cannot see that it is not “[y]our responsibility to take the lead in defining the acceptable boundaries of the Roman primacy, and not merely to accept them as offered to us. . . ” Due obedience is owed by you to Rome as your patriarchate on such a critical matter. Rome, not you, gets to define the acceptable boundaries, if you wish to be in communin with her. If you don’t and can’t agree with that, then you simply shouldn’t be under Rome and in communion with her, because you’re not exercising proper discipline and obedience to it. No army can function in which the privates get to redefine their officers’ orders to suit their own preferences.
I can’t help but think that you really would be both much happier and more consistent if you simply became Eastern Orthodox. Especially since you consider “latinization” to be some sort of insidious spiritual disease.
>>>But I find your answer ultimately unsatisfactory.< << Don't we all? If it was satisfying, there would be no problem. If there was a satisfying answer, there would be no schism. But there is. The overriding factor is the failure of all communions, Catholic and Orthodox, to live up to the canonical norms of ecclesiology laid out in the first millennium. Because the situation of the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches alike is profoundly UN-canonical, all current ecclesial relations are to a greater or lesser extent problematic and unsatisfactory. As I said before, it is a situation in which we live, not of our own making, and not our our liking. >>>But the point is that they are still directed to do so BY ROME. < << A very good point, one often overlooked by partisans on both sides, but not by me. First, let it be said that throughout its entire effort to restore and renew the Eastern Catholic Churches, Rome has always used pursuasion rather than coercion. That may be part of the proble, at least with regard to the recalcitrant Ruthenian hierarchy. Rome's general approach has been to lay out the reasons why the desired renewal is "the right thing to do" (see, for example, Fr. Robert Taft's address to the Eastern Catholic bishops, "Liturgy in the Life of the Church", in Eastern Churches Journal, Vol.7 No.2). A little more forceful approach, I will admit, might have yielded greater results, but would also interfere with Rome's desire that we be autonomous Churches and not merely adjuncts of Rome. This brings me to another aspect of the problem. For four hundred years, Rome did treat the Eastern Christians in communion with her as "ritual adjuncts"--which is the phenomenon of "uniatism". As part of the process of unitaism, Rome effectively infantilized the Eastern "rites" by preventing its leaders from acting in accordance with Tradition, and in particular from exercising the office of the episcipacy as it is understood in Eastern Christian ecclesiology. Rome now repents of that action, and wants us to be true autonomous Churches, but the problem is analogous to the rehabilitation of a drunk or drug addict by the very bartender or pusher who got him in that shape in the first place. Just turning us loose won't do it, because there is the weight of 400 years of history and habit pushing down on us. Instead of cold turkey, Rome has, prudentially, seen the need for a period of guidance during transition, during which time it wants us both to obey its directives and become more independent. Each particular Church is proceeding along that path at a different rate. The Melkites, with their strong theological tradition (members of the Cairo School such as Patriarchs Maximos IV and V and Gregorios III, Archbishops Jospeh (Raya) and Elias (Zoghby) among others were critical participants in shaping the Second Vatican Council), as well as a degree of cultural and linguistic solidarity that comes from being an oppressed Middle Eastern Church, are definitely farther along than any other. In fact, I can point you to Melkite parishes that are more scrupulously Orthodox than some of their Antiochian Orthodox counterparts (many of which have a distinctly Evangelical subtext to them). The Ukrainians and the Romanians are not far behind. It is significant that Melkite Patriarch Gregorios III can proudly proclaim that he is "an Orthodox Christian, with a plus", while Patriarch Lyubomir of Kyiv can publically state that "between the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox there are no theological disagreements". Who am I to disagree with them (and their synods)? We Ruthenians, hobbled by our own peculiar history, are lagging behind and indeed, have been trying (through an ongoing liturgical "reform" to render our rite significantly different from that used by our brothers in the Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Church. >>>However, the Papacy claims a unique power and authority to give definitive direction to its faithful.< << That claim is in dispute, or at least, the definition given to that claim in 1871, in response to a particular set of historical circumstances. Even within the Curia Romana itself, there is disagreement over how the Petrine Ministry should be exercised. Supporters of "jurisdictional" primacy are being challenged by those who wish to return to a first millennium "charismatic" primacy based on "auctoritas" rather than "plena potestas". >>>If Rome writes and issues something with respect to its own communicants, then Rome is the one that gets to define it, since it wrote it.< << On the other hand, this is a very "institutional" type of ecclesiology which distorts the maxim "No one may judge the Roman See", which in its original context merely meant that Rome was court of final appeal in ecclesiastical matters. The principals of reception and conciliarity do apply here: Rome cannot unilaterally define, unless it can carry the consensus of those to whom the definition applied. Morover, one cannot act as judge in one's own cause. If Rome wants its particular definition of its prerogatives accepted within a communion of autonomous Churches, it must convince those Churches that its definition is right. Presently, the jury is still out, and repeated statements by recent holders of the Petrine Throne indicate that they think it is out, as well. >>>The question is what definition of the Petrine Office is included in that full recovery.< << Therein lies the rub, no? The consensus in Catholic and Orthodox theological circles, confirmed in the statements of the Joint International Theological Commission (which have been endorsed by the Holy See, even when Orthodox opinion has been divided) is that the situation of the first millennium should be taken as normative. That means everything from the Gregorian Reforms onward has been relativized. In 1976, Joseph Ratzinger made an address at the University of Graz, in which he said that, "regarding the [Petrine] primacy, the Catholic Church can demand no more from the Orthodox Church, as a prerequisite for communion, that which was professed and believed by the undivided Church of the first millennium". He reiterated this statement in his book "Principals of Catholic Theology" (Ignatius Press, 1985). His actions since that time don't appear to contradict his words; in any case, they are held by Walter Cardinal Kaspar, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, Benedict XVI's chief ecumenical officer. Now, the issue here is, "What was the definition and exercise of the Petrine Ministry in the first millennium?" Here, I believe that historical-critical method must be applied to the development of doctrine in the same way that it has been applied to biblical analysis. Certainly, at this time, with unprecedented acccess to both Greek and Latin documents (as well as a body of Syriac and Armenian works), scholars have a great opportunity to provide support to the "Dialogue of Truth" that is one pillar of the ecumenical engagement. The way forward in that regard has been paved by the late Fr. Francis Dvornik, OP and the recently departed Prof. Jarosalv Pelikan. If this isn't being done, it is not because it is difficult, but because parties on both sides are afraid of where it will lead. But a Church based in truth has no need to fear the truth, and can only be harmed by living in ignorance or falsehood. Thus, when the Joint Theological Commission meets later this year, this will be the question on the agenda. I suspect that neither side will get all of what it wants out of this, since both sides seem to have lost sight of the context in which primacy was exercised in the first millennium, and have allowed their vision to be obscured by 900 years of strident and empty polemics. >>>If you don’t accept that, then you really should be under one of those patriarchs as a full-fledged Eastern Orthodox, and not in communion with Rome, because both sides agree that this remains a communion-dividing issue.< << This would be true, had it actually divided the Church in the first millennium. It did not, and in fact, did not actually divide the Church even after 1054. In retrospect, it became something of an excuse for continuing the separation, but it did not cause it, and was not seen as sufficient in itself to justify a division of the Body of Christ. >>>Due obedience is owed by you to Rome as your patriarchate on such a critical matter.< << Ah. Ecclesiastical point of order: Rome is NOT my Patriarch. The Eastern Churches have their own Patriarchs and Metropolitans who are equal in grace and dignity with the Pope of Rome. He does not impose the Pallium on them, thus there is no sign of subordination. Since the pontificate of John Paul II, Eastern Catholic patriarchical Churches have been electing their own patriarchs without reference to Rome. Rome merely recognizes its communion with them by accepting a synodikon (statement of faith, usually the Creed) and by celebrating a Eucharistic Liturgy in which the new patriarch is commemorated as a sign of communion. I have been trying to make this point all along: The Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the West, meaning that he is the head of the Latin Church. His rights and prerogatives as Patriarch allow him to give direct commands to members of his Church, in accordance with the Tradition of that Church. He cannot do the same thing to Eastern Catholic patriarchs and metropolitans without doing violence to the integrity of their office and the status of their Churches as equal in grace and dignity to the Church of Rome. >>>No army can function in which the privates get to redefine their officers’ orders to suit their own preferences.< << Here we come to a fundamental ecclesiological difference between the Western Catholic radition (in which I include Anglicans) and the Eastern Orthodox traditon. In the East, while bishops have a special charism to teach and pass on the true faith as it was received, it is the entire Laos tou Theou that has the ultimate responsibility for protecting Holy Tradition. In that regard, we are no respecters of persons, and have throughout our history often stood in opposition to our hierarchs when the latter have been in error. When patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops and bishops have fallen into heresy, it has usually been the laity--particularly the monastics--who have been in the resistance. We're privates, but we're not robots. We have freedom of conscience in areas where Tradition does not speak. Tradition makes no mention of the juridical primacy of Rome, but merely notes that Rome is the first see, first among equals. Our ecclesiology is not hierarchical or universal, as is Western ecclesiology. The fullness of the Church is present in every local Church where the Eucharist is celebrated by a bishop in the Apostolic Succession. It is not a component part of the Catholic Church, it IS the Catholic Church, whose universality is not defined by communion with one particular bishop, but by the organic communion of all bishops who celebrate the same Eucharist. Thus, if the Orthodox Churches are lacking from the absence of communion with Rome, Rome is equally lacking from its absence of communion with the Orthodox; both have sinned against unity. Within that milieu. we Eastern Catholics have been cast up to find our own way. In this, we must look to those to whom leadership has been granted within our Church, not only those ordained as bishop, but all those upon whom the Holy Spirit has given this charism for unity, whether bishop, priest, monastic or layman. In this, I can point proudly to people who share my view, who were ordained and consecrated, and whose holiness is manifest in the witness of their lives. I'll stand by them, and if Rome decides that it cannot be in communion with them for the beliefs that they profess, then I'll go with them. >>> can’t help but think that you really would be both much happier and more consistent if you simply became Eastern Orthodox. Especially since you consider “latinization” to be some sort of insidious spiritual disease<<< Well, happiness is not why I joined the Church. As to why I joined, without any prior attachment to Eastern Catholicism, and when I could just as easily have become Eastern Orthodox, I have no good answer. I had a number of rationalizations at the time, none of which I find convincing today. The best answer I have now is that this is where God intended me to be, doing what He intended me to do. Certainly for the last decade, ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox has been a major part of my vocation, taken up a good deal of my time, and given me immense satisfaction as well as pain and heartache. Nothing would make me happier than to become one with the Orthodox Christians who are truly my brothers and sisters in Christ. Nothing would please me more than to be able to go home. But, as I rejected Orthodox calls to do so, so I must also reject Western calls to do so. As many Eastern Catholic theologians have stated, we cannot accept reintegration with Orthodoxy without retaining our communion with the Church of Rome. If we are to have what we desire so much, we must, I fear, do most of the heavy lifting ourselves. Like Treebeard, "I am not on anyone's side, because nobody is really on my side". As nobody loved trees like the ents, I fear nobody really wants Christian unity the way some Eastern Catholics do.
I guess I am responsible for beginning this ongoing debate/discussion about the Eastern Catholics and their relationship with the Bishop of Rome when I kept citing in reply to Stuart the position of the head of the communion of which he is a part. I was not doing so to be provocative, but was attempting to cite sources whom I thought he would be more likely to accept as authoritative. I find Luther particularly persuasive on the topic of contraception, but I doubted Stuart, for good reasons given his tradition, would find him authoritative.
I did not mean to make Stuart defend the relationship of Eastern Catholics with the Bishop of Rome nor to start a heated debate so removed from the topic of the thread. My apologies for unintentionally opening this line of debate/discussion. I know nothing about the relationship of Eastern Catholics with the Bishop of Rome and consider it none of my business.
I hope that my two brothers in the Faith, both whom I respect and with each of whom I have enjoyed pleasant exchanges of emails, can make peace.
>>>I hope that my two brothers in the Faith, both whom I respect and with each of whom I have enjoyed pleasant exchanges of emails, can make peace.<<< James and I are entirely at peace. We have disagreements, we discuss the disagreements like adults, we move our positions a little and converge on the truth. Few people even know the Eastern Catholic Churches exist, so it is not surprising that even fewer know about their relationship with the Church of Rome on the one hand, and the Orthodox Churches on the other. Even a lot of those who know are confused, so I don't wonder that those who are not part of the family would know what's happening at the dinner table.
There is more than a little irony here when you consider that this entire discussion was begun by a Southern Baptist theologian!
Stuart and I are at peace indeed. (We’ve been having some friendly off-line exchanges, in fact.) I am probing and pushing (both for information and to see how Stuart’s mind works), and he is responding appropriately. I presume I’m not asking him anything he hasn’t already been asked many times before.
I would still demur on a few points, and then hope to close the subject from my end.
First, Stuart, I’m quite familiar with the whole argument you lay out for the difference between the Eastern and Western conceptions of the churches, with respect to hierarchy and authority as well as other points. It is a convenient stereotype for Eastern Orthodox apologetics vis-a-vis the West, but simply does not represent the West accurately. We are not hierarchical in the simple “top-down” model of your stereotype — as indeed your “Rome will propose but does not impose” explanation regarding the Byzantine Rite churches concedes. And Anglicanism has a conception of ecclesiology and episcopal authority far closer to that of Orthodoxy than that of Rome, so your lumping of the two together in a single “Western” category is illegitimate. Frnakly, it does not appear that you’ve ever done any reading in this area from Anglican sources, as opposed to Roman ones.
Second, if you are in communion with the Pope, and if he is the “patriarch of the West”, then he is your patriarch, even if once or twice removed. Last time I looked at a map, Washington D.C. was in the West, and episcopal authority has (at least until the 20th c.) been defined geographically. (The Eastern Orthodox freely admit that the multiple jurisdictions in the USA are a scandal contrary to the proper nature of the Church in this regard.)
A couple points of curiosity that are relevant here — does either the Pope, or those designated by him, consecrate your bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs? Does their apostolic succession of orders go back through and to him, rather than one of the four historic Eastern Patriarchates, at some point? And has Rome explicitly said in black and white that these patriarchs and metropolitans equal to Rome in all ways — including the power and authority to issue infallible ex cathedra pronouncements on matters of faith and morals generally necessary to salvation, to the faithful under their jurisdictions?
Third, let me for the sake of argument retract the previous point and agree that the Pope is not your patriarch, and episcopal authority is not necessarily geographical in definiton. But if so, then the Pope is not the universal “patriarch of the West.” He is only one patriarch in the West. The primates of the Anglican Communion, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, are also Western patriarchs (though, with the slide of the Anglican Communion into heresy and schism, that is now in various cases either no longer true or at least highly questionable). Ditto (in all respects, including current problems) for the Old Catholics, Polish National Catholics, and those Lutherans that maintained the apostolic successsion. New patriachates can arise in the West, just as they have arisen in the East (e.g. Moscow). (Arguably their emergence in the West is more tumultuous, but when we see Eastern Patriarchs expelling one another from communion over purely jurisdictional matters, as happened briefly a couple of years ago regarding the Orthodox Church in one of the now independent parts of the former USSR, the East can’t present any substantive objection to the West on this score.)
It’s perfectly reasonable for you to correct any genuine Western misunderstandings of Eastern theology and jurisdictional authority. But then, according to the Golden Rule, do the same when it comes to the West. Please understand our equally complex and confused ecclesiology properly, instead of cramming us into a single neat stereotypical box. If you Eastern Christians object to unilateral imposition of the authority of Rome on your patriarchates, and desire liberty to practice the fullness of your traditions, then do not call for that same imposition on Anglicans or other catholic Western Christians and deny us that same liberty. Western Catholic is not identical to Roman Catholic. We too are not reducible to “ritual adjuncts” of Rome.
As long as I haven’t inadvertently started a dispute between friends, I am happy. Go at it! ;-)
>>>Second, if you are in communion with the Pope, and if he is the “patriarch of the West”, then he is your patriarch, even if once or twice removed. Last time I looked at a map, Washington D.C. was in the West, and episcopal authority has (at least until the 20th c.) been defined geographically.< << The anomaly of the "Patrairchate of the West" is precisely that it has no geographic limits. The Church of Rome does not recognize any territorial limits with regard to the Christian East--it appoints Latin bishops and oversees the Latin Church in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, even though these are within the canonical territories of various Eastern Catholic patriarchs (Alexandria, Antioch and Kyiv respectively). The canonical norm is "one city, one bishop", but Rome blithely ignores this by setting up and/or countenancing overlapping jurisdictions, not just here in the West (how many Bishops of Pittsburgh, how many of Canton, how many of Philadelphia?) but in the East as well (a Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, a Latin bishop of Kyiv, a Latin bishop of Alexandria, and so forth). The Decree on the Eastern Churches, reinforced by the CCEO, upholds the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs, and one of them is their equality in dignity with the Patriarch of the West; another is the right of Patriarchs to order and regulate within their particular Churches according to the norms of those Churches. That is why the relationship between the Pope and the Melkite Patriarch is significantly different than that between, e.g., the Pope and the Archbishop of Los Angeles. >>>A couple points of curiosity that are relevant here — does either the Pope, or those designated by him, consecrate your bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs? < << No. In the case of patriarchical Churches, the synod of the Church elects the patriarch and immediately enthrones him. A notification is then sent to the Pope with a synodicon (symbol of faith), which is followed by the celebration of Eucharistic liturgies in which each commemorates the other, thereby establishing visible communion. In "Major Archepiscopal" Churches (a neologism not known prior to Vatican II), the process is similar to that for patriarchical Churches, save that the Pope gives his approval prior to the enthronement. I have never heard of the Pope turning back the results of a major archepiscopal election. In Metropolitan Churches, the Synod or Council of Hiearchs sends a list of three candidates to the Pope, who reviews and approves the names. The Synod or Council then elects the Metropolitan from among the three. This is similar to the process used to elect the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Byzantine period, with the Pope taking the role of the Byzantine Emperor. The election of bishops is conducted within the synods or councils of hierarchs within the particular Eastern Churches. Candidates are then ordained (the Greek term cheirotoneia is used for the ordination of deacons, presbyters and bishops) by the laying on of hands by at least three bishops. In the Western Church, all bishops are appointed directly by the Pope; their subordination to him is signified by the imposition of the Pallium (a rectangular woolen stole) according to a tradition established by Pope Gregory the Great. Eastern Catholic bishops do not receive the Pallium, because they are not subordinate to the pope, but hold their rank and office within the hierarchy of their own particular Churches. >>>Does their apostolic succession of orders go back through and to him, rather than one of the four historic Eastern Patriarchates, at some point? < << Apostolic succession in most of the Eastern Catholic Churches traces back to their Mother Churches in Orthodoxy. In the case of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, it goes back through the Orthodox bishops who signed the Treaty of Brest in 1596. For the Melkites, it goes through those bishops who elected the unionist patriarch in 1724. In the Romanians, it goes back to the bishops who signed the Union of Alba Julia in 1701. The Maronites have had a continuous patriarchate since the 7th century. A few of the Eastern Catholic Churches are "uniate' in the most perjorative sense; i.e., they were artificial constructs planted by missionary orders (mainly Jesuits) in places where there was no popular support for union. Examples would include Bulgaria, Greece, Belarus and a few of the smaller oriental Churches. As might be expected, being artificial, the clergy of these Churches cannot trace their origins back to any Orthodox bishop. Some of these Churches do not even have bishops of their own, but are commended to the solicitude of the local Latin ordinary or the Exarch of one of the major Eastern Churches. An example of the latter is the Russian Catholic Church, which was formed around 1905 by a groups of Russian intellectuals in the circle of Vladimir Soleviev, together with some Orthodox clergy who were dissatisfied with the interference of the Russian state in Church affairs (since Peter the Great, the Church had been administered in the same manner as Protestant state churches in Germany; in 1905, the administrative prefect of the Church of Moscow was a Russian cavalry general). Always a small group, after the Revolution the Russian Catholic Church existed mainly in places like Paris and New York, and its followers are mainly non-Russian converts (in spite of, or because of this, they are more punctilliously Russian Orthodox than most Russian Orthodox parishes). In this country, they have two parishes and a mission, the former in New York and San Francisco, the latter in Los Angeles. I believe their total membership is under 1000 (and for some reason, I know many of them). Until a few years ago, they were under the administrative authority of the Jesuits, but this became unacceptable to them (if you know the Jebbies, you'll understand), so they are now under the omophorion of the Melkite Patriarch. >>>And has Rome explicitly said in black and white that these patriarchs and metropolitans equal to Rome in all ways — including the power and authority to issue infallible ex cathedra pronouncements on matters of faith and morals generally necessary to salvation, to the faithful under their jurisdictions?< << Yes, Rome has. It can be found (a) in the Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches; and (b) in the Codex canonorum ecclesiarum orientalium. Regarding the power to make ex cathedra declarations (and leaving aside whether it has any warrant in Tradition), you confuse two different apects of papal authority and responsibility. The Pope wears three hats. First and foremost, he is the Bishop of Rome and head of the Metropolitan Province of Rome. All of the rest of his perquisites follow from this ecclesial reality: as Bishop of Rome he is head of the Church with Priority, which Presides in Love. He is Patriarch of the West and Pope because he is Bishop of Rome. He must become that before he can be the others. It is significant that, until the Gregorian Reforms, the Pope was normally chosen from the clergy of Rome and the suburbicanian dioceses--and the usual candidate was the Archdeacon of Rome, rather than a bishop or even a presbyter (since the Archdeacon was the previous Pope's right hand man, it made sense to elect him for the sake of continuity). Today, the Pope usually abdicates his episcopal responsibilities, appointing an Apostolic Vicar in his place. I find this to be a serious blow to the eccleisal nature of the Roman Primacy, as well as shortchaging of the faithful of Rome, who really deserve to have a full-time bishop. Please note that "bishop" is the only one of the Pope's many titles that is actually "sacramental"--but it is the one that gets the least of his attention. As head of the only Apostolic Church in the West, the Pope is Patriarch of the West, a position more or less codified by the Councils of Constantinople I and Chalcedon. Interestingly, both of those councils based Rome's patriarchical position (and its standing amongst the patriarchates) on the princple of accommodation; i.e., that ecclesiastical structures should mirror civil ones. Rome was the capital of the Western Empire (nominally, anyway); Rome should be the head of the Western Church. Today, most of the Popes duties involve his role as head of the Latin Church, i.e.,as Patriarch of the West (ironically, Benedict XVI just surrendered that title, perhaps recognizing the irregularity of a patriarchate without territorial limits). He issues encyclicals, pastorals, directives, and so on, most of which have nothing to do with the Eastern Churches even peripherally. He meets directly with the bishops of the Latin Church, he admonishes, corrects and guides them directly, because in the Tradition of the Western Church, that is how patriarchical authority is exercised (it is similar in the Coptic Church, where the Pope of Alexandria had much more direct control over his Church than the Bishop of Rome would have over his until the late 19th century). Finally, the Pope is "Ecumenical Pontiff" (as he is sometimes commemorated in the Byzantine rite (though the new translation about to be issued just calls him "Holy Father"). This is principally a ministry of faith and unity, and as might be expected, very few of his duties fall into this area (the principle of subsidiarity, which demands that issues be resolved at the lowest possible level ensures this). Muddying the waters about this is the Curia Romana, that august body of underemployed ecclesiocrats who, having nothing better to do with their time, stick their noses into everyone else's business. To remedy that, a number of Eastern Catholic bishops have proposed that one element of the CCEO should be applied to the Curia as well. That is, each Eastern Catholic patriarch and metropolitan is required by canon law to maintain separate chanceries for their episcopal and patriarchical roles. If this was applied to Rome, it would mean breaking the Curia into three pieces--an epicopal chancery responsible for the Diocese of Rome; a patriarchical chancery responsible for overseeing the Latin Church as a whole; and finally, a pontifical chancery that deals only with inter-ecclesial issues. A rational division of labor would mandate the latter be very small indeed, which would help ensure that the Pope would have to pick his fights and only intervene in other Churches over matters of real importance to the Church of God as a whole. Of course, I personally would like to see devolution of the Patriarchate of the West, and the erection of additional patriarchates on rational geographic lines. Thus, the Patriarchate of the West would cover Western Europe and North Africa from Libya to Morocco. The Patriarchate of Alexandria would have jurisdiction over "all Africa", as its title claims. The Patriarchate of Antioch would have responsibility for the Middle East, Mesopotamia and India. The Patriarchate of Kyiv would be responsible for Eastern Europe. That would require new patriarchates for North America, South America, and East Asia/Oceania. As the concentration of power within the rival patriarchates of Rome and Constantinople created an unstable bi-polar situation in the Church, the diffusion of authority among multiple, territorial patriarchates would restore multipolarity that in turn would mandate a conciliar approach to Church affairs. >>>But if so, then the Pope is not the universal “patriarch of the West.” He is only one patriarch in the West. < << That's pretty much the case, yes. >>>The primates of the Anglican Communion, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, are also Western patriarchs (though, with the slide of the Anglican Communion into heresy and schism, that is now in various cases either no longer true or at least highly questionable). Ditto (in all respects, including current problems) for the Old Catholics, Polish National Catholics, and those Lutherans that maintained the apostolic successsion. New patriachates can arise in the West, just as they have arisen in the East (e.g. Moscow). (Arguably their emergence in the West is more tumultuous, but when we see Eastern Patriarchs expelling one another from communion over purely jurisdictional matters, as happened briefly a couple of years ago regarding the Orthodox Church in one of the now independent parts of the former USSR, the East can’t present any substantive objection to the West on this score.)< << You are absolutely correct, though the Eastern part of me keeps screaming that there is more to Apostolic Succession than the ability to trace bishops; one also has to maintain the fullness of the Apostolic Tradition. As you point out, in the case of the Anglicans and many other denominations that maintain the episcopal office, this is no longer the case, or at best, dubious. >>>Please understand our equally complex and confused ecclesiology properly, instead of cramming us into a single neat stereotypical box.<<< Always willing to listen. My main failing is a tendency to put almost Western Christians into a box labeled "Protestants", whom Rome defines, quite correctly, in my opinion, not as Churches, but as 'ecclesial communities" on account of their having either broken or repudiated Apostolic Succession or otherwise departed from major elements of the Apostolic Tradition. Between Rome and Constantinople, and even including the Assyrians and the Oriental Orthodox, there is a lot of common ground on what makes the Church--real bishops, true sacraments, and above all, the Eucharist. Elements on whch ecclesiologies differ are on secondary and tertiary issues: the necessity of communion with Rome (even Rome doesn't buy that one anymore), whether to accept the acts of certain councils, but nothing fundamental. With the non-Catholics of the West, there are much more substantial differences spread out along a continuum that makes broad definitions misleading, as you have said. My main error, then, has not been to misrepresent them, but to ignore them altogether for the sake of simplicity. I concur that there is indeed a "Western Catholic" Tradition that is not congruent with the Roman Catholic Tradition, but it is badly fragmented and under tremendous pressure. Things might have been different had the Great Church of Africa not disappeared, if the Tridentine Church had not suppressed the Gallican rite, if the English Reformation had not descended into broad church latitudinarianism. But it did, and the valiant attempts of a handful of continuing Anglicans and confessional Lutherans doesn't seem able to prevail against the tide. I never considered Anglicans ritual adjuncts to Rome (though all Western Churches share certain foundational assumptions), but I think you may be onto something with regard to ritual, If, as we Easterners truly believe, lex orandi est lex credendi, then how one worships shapes how one prays and therefore, believes. Rome has a dreadful fear of ritual diversity, and has at least since Trent. All Vatican II did was replace one predominant liturgy with another; all that changed was an intolerance for anything new with an equal intolerance for anything old. Right now, the Episcopal Church is bleeding believers, many of whom are at a loss as to where to go. A lot do go to the Roman Catholic Church; a few go to Eastern Orthodoxy (we may even get one or two). But the fact is, traditional Anglicans suffer severe dislocation when they move to a different Church with a different liturgical tradition (I've been told this by Anglicans who joined the RCs as well as by some who became ECs). The Western Rite Vicariate of the AOC offers one solution (a slightly byzantinized version of the BCP), but it is small, hard to find, somewhat marginal and viewed with suspicion by many Orthodox. One solution, I believe, would be liberal application of the Anglican Usage dispensation, by which entire congregations of Anglicans can (and have) been received into the Catholic Church, retaining their ministers (married or not) and their liturgy (minor changes to the commemorations, not much more). I believe this would be of great benefit to Anglicans in search of a home, and to the Catholic Church, which could use a little spiritual rigor and some examples of good liturgy to boot. Unfortunately, few RC bishops in this country have used it. I suspect that many of them are leery of bringing on board a bunch of people a lot more gung ho for Tradition than they are themselves.
If you would allow me the liberty of addressing a few points I will attempt to tie this back into the main thesis of this thread. I agree with a lot that Stuart says, and appreciate the depth of his insight. Where we disagree, I think, is in how to we resolve the obvious tension in being Eastern Catholics. Yes, Rome has called us to recover our traditions, but she has not said at the expense of dogma. Therein is the rub. I think there is a certain amount of latitude given to the east as a result of this call, but I don’t think it is a blank check, nor should it be. As a Catholic I don’t think it is always safe to use Orthodox theologians as a guide, especially when we have (for lack of a better term) a magisterial statement on something. Yes, we can glean mush insight from Orthodox theologians, but if we take the path of relying solely on them then we are justified in asking which ones? For instance was the ecumenical patriarch right that Humana Vitae was orthodox, or was Fr. Meyendorff correct? There is not a unified voice in Orthodoxy concerning the matter, and while certain Catholic theologians may dissent the point is they are dissenting. So they question is to whom shall we go? That being said, as an Eastern Catholic I do think we may “judge,” what Rome has said in light of our eastern sensibilities. That is to say, we can continue to theologize in our particular eastern way, so long as we don’t go so far as to say Rome has erred. Given the tension that exists sometimes it is best not to open a particular can of theological worms, but rather continue to “think,” as an eastern Christian. In this I don’t think me and Stuart are far off.
Yet, it does us not good to say, for instance, that Papal Infallibility was wrong, because it just begs the question of if it is wrong then why be in communion with a Church that official teaches error? I understand that this is being disguised, and the understanding of what that means may change, but the essence of it can’t change without admitting error. Also, I think we should be weary of “Latinaphobia,” if I can make up a word. What I mean by that is during the first century as the Churches grew apart there wasn’t the required communication available to always have a consensus on everything. But we now have they ability to integrate different practices in a reciprocal manner, and if something is beneficial to souls it shouldn’t be discarded out of hand. For instance, it is not an Orthodox tradition to have holy water fonts in the front of the churches, but you do find them in Byzantine Churches. I don’t think, as some do, that they need to be removed. Dip your hand in, bless yourself, and then venerate the icons. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency in the west to encroach in areas that they should not, and again I agree with Stuart in those areas.
>>>Yes, Rome has called us to recover our traditions, but she has not said at the expense of dogma.< << This is tautological, Bob. "Rome defines dogma because Rome has dogmatically decreed that it is". That doesn't wash, and moreover, isn't true. Much, even most, of what Roman Catholics consider dogma is no such animal. A dogma is an essential element of faith necessary for salvation. Failure to believe dogmatic principles of faith makes one a heretic. Heretics do not have valid sacraments, nor do they constitute part of the Church of God. Ergo, when the Second Vatican Council began referring to the Orthodox Churches as "true Churches", and when the Holy See addresses them as "Sister Churches", everything you thought you knew about "dogma" went out the window. They just haven't told you, yet. From the Eastern perspective, very little is the true realm of "dogma"--theology proper (the nature of God as Trinity) and Christology (the nature of Christ as God and man) as well as certain elements of the divine economy of salvation (salvation comes exclusively through grace). Other aspects of doctrine are not dogmatic, even when they are not questioned. It is noteworthy that there is only one true "dogmatic" statement about Mary, and that one--that she is true Theotokos, as defined by the Council of Ephesus--is really a Christological not a Marian statement. Mary belongs to the inner life of the Church, and the inner life is never a proper subject for dogma. Finally, I suggest that you read the 1996 Liturgical Instruction (aka Instructions for Implementing the Liturgical Provisions of the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches) issued by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. It makes very plain that all differences between the Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox counterparts are to be minimized or eliminated, so as to make the eventual reintegration as smooth and painless as possible. >>>As a Catholic I don’t think it is always safe to use Orthodox theologians as a guide, especially when we have (for lack of a better term) a magisterial statement on something.< << Even though 90% of all "magisterial" statements of the Holy See do not concern us in the least? Why do you think we went through the trouble of developing our own catechetical materials? Why not just use the CCC, if Rome is the font of all wisdom? Reminds me of the old joke: "How many Ruthenians does it take to change a lightbulb?" "I dunno. We're waiting for Rome to tell us it's OK to change". >>>Yes, we can glean mush insight from Orthodox theologians, but if we take the path of relying solely on them then we are justified in asking which ones? For instance was the ecumenical patriarch right that Humana Vitae was orthodox, or was Fr. Meyendorff correct? There is not a unified voice in Orthodoxy concerning the matter, and while certain Catholic theologians may dissent the point is they are dissenting. So they question is to whom shall we go? < << Where your conscience tells you to go. Why do you insist on creedal certitude, when the Fathers guaranteed no such thing? All we are offered if hope based on our trust in Christ's mercy. We are given guarantees on nothing. >>>That being said, as an Eastern Catholic I do think we may “judge,” what Rome has said in light of our eastern sensibilities. That is to say, we can continue to theologize in our particular eastern way, so long as we don’t go so far as to say Rome has erred. < << As with many Greek Catholics, you'll be insisting Rome can't err long after Rome has conceded its own errors. Which, by the way, it has done a lot lately, even if not actually screaming to the heavens that it was wrong. But, if you look at the progress of Latin theology since Vatican II, you'll see that Rome has conceded almost every point that it held against the Orthodox since the Council of Florence, whether it be purgatory or the Filioque. >>>Also, I think we should be weary of “Latinaphobia,” if I can make up a word. < << Let's not. But I think you need to look at your own attitude in light of what the Holy See has written with regard to latinization. To paraphrase Father Robert Taft, when he was reaming out our bishops in 1999, "If you don't want to de-latinize because its the right thing to do, do it because the Pope told you to do it". >>>For instance, it is not an Orthodox tradition to have holy water fonts in the front of the churches, but you do find them in Byzantine Churches.< << Actually, you do find fonts in a number of different Orthodox jurisdictions. It's a local usage, nothing more. Remember, the Orthodox have the Great Blessing of the Water, just as we do, and they like to take it home with them in big bottles. Those bottles get refilled a lot. Look around in the narthex of a Ukrainian or Rusyn Orthodox Church, and you'll see a big dispenser with a spigot. That's their font. >>>But we now have they ability to integrate different practices in a reciprocal manner, and if something is beneficial to souls it shouldn’t be discarded out of hand.<<< That's the logic of Elkoism. We went through that one already, and found that the tree bore bitter fruit. Again, I state that the consistent message of the Holy See, as opposed to various dicasteries of the Curia, has been for the Eastern Catholic Churches to recover the fullness of their Traditions, no ifs, ands or buts.
Note on the use of the term sister church
>>Where your conscience tells you to go. Why do you insist on creedal certitude, when the Fathers guaranteed no such thing? All we are offered if hope based on our trust in Christ’s mercy.< < This is the blue print for sexual anarchy. It was the reasoning of the Anglicans in the 20's, and we have seen the bitter fruit of that tree. Speaking of the fathers I am still waiting for a single quote that supported the barrier methods of old. >>We are given guarantees on nothing.< < "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, ” John 16:13
>>As with many Greek Catholics, you’ll be insisting Rome can’t err long after Rome has conceded its own errors.< < It is better than the view that you presently have. Which seems to be 1) Rome has called the Orthodox sister churches, 2) churches can’t err; 3) therefore there are no dogmatic differences left? 4) Other than the ones that Rome holds, which are in obvious error!!!! Notice that I said it seems to be your view, not that it IS your view. I do not speak for you, even though you have, on more than one occasion, have exercised this liberty where I am concerned. >> Which, by the way, it has done a lot lately, even if not actually screaming to the heavens that it was wrong. But, if you look at the progress of Latin theology since Vatican II, you’ll see that Rome has conceded almost every point that it held against the Orthodox since the Council of Florence, whether it be purgatory or the Filioque.<< Unfortunately, the Church does not operate in the manner you think it does, so you will be forced to give citations of these repudiations. Unless you can give official repudiations then it is pointless to continue this line of discussion. It should be noted that when John XXIII called the council he said that it wouldn't be dogmatic because the doctrine was already well known by all. So far from repudiating doctrine, Vatican II either explicitly upheld it, or allowed the traditional understanding to remain as it was. It was not called as a dogmatic council, but rather a pastoral one.
>>>It is better than the view that you presently have. < << You mean to do what Rome has told us to do? Tp seek the truth no matter where it leads? Hmmm. >>>Which seems to be 1) Rome has called the Orthodox sister churches, 2) churches can’t err; 3) therefore there are no dogmatic differences left? < << If you understand the meaning of dogma, then there is no other conclusion. >>> 4) Other than the ones that Rome holds, which are in obvious error!!!!< << Not quite, Bob. Say rather, that much of what Rome has called "dogma" out of habit was not really dogma, but the doctrinal expression of oone particular Church elevated to a universal norm. >>>Notice that I said it seems to be your view, not that it IS your view. I do not speak for you, even though you have, on more than one occasion, have exercised this liberty where I am concerned.< << Fine and dandy. Notice, though, that you did not even express what appears to be my view, but rather what you wanted my view to be. >>>Unfortunately, the Church does not operate in the manner you think it does, so you will be forced to give citations of these repudiations. < << Compare the definition of purgatory given at the Councils of Lyons II and Florence with those found in the CCC and the statements on the subject made by Pope John Paul II. Notice that as expressed in the medieval councils, purgatory is (a) a place where (b) sinners undergo PAINFUL purification in MATERIAL fires as a consequence of temporal PUNISHMENT for sin. Today, purgatory is a state, where sinners are purified. No mention of pain, no mention of material fires, no mention of punishment. Which is "purgatory lite", and essentially something to which the Orthodox would have concurred in 1274. On the Filioque, see the "Clarification on the Procession of the Holy Spirit" written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and compare its "the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" with Florence's "the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son as from a single source". Geez. Bob--when the Latins drop the Filioque because it is not congruent with Catholic doctrine (the USCCB is working that one right now), when the Pope says that the uninterpolated Creed is the only ecumenically-binding symbol of faith, what more do you want? >>>t should be noted that when John XXIII called the council he said that it wouldn’t be dogmatic because the doctrine was already well known by all. < << This is the red herring followed by the SSPX. Don't go there. >>>This is the blue print for sexual anarchy.< << Only if you feel that you need to be bound by Law, and not by the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit. >>>When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, ” John 16:13<<< And what do you think that means?
Regarding “Note on the use of the term sister church” (you would think that someone who has spent ten years tilling in the ecumenical fields didn’t know about this?), the salient points are:
>>>1. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.
Consequently, one should avoid, as a source of misunderstanding and theological confusion, the use of formulations such as «our two Churches,» which, if applied to the Catholic Church and the totality of Orthodox Churches (or a single Orthodox Church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured.
12. Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist<<< In sum, there is only one "Catholic Church". The communion of Churches called the "Catholic Church" is part of it; so, too, are all Churches that maintain a valid episcopate and Eucharist. The particular Orthodox Churches are Sister Churches to each other, and to the Churches of the Catholic communion (most especially to those Eastern Catholic Churches that have a direct counterpart in the Orthodox communion), as well as to the Churches belonging to the Oriental Orthodox communion and the Assyrian communion. On the other hand, one cannot call any Protestant denomination a "Sister Church" because they are not true Churches as it is understood by the common definition of the word, but merely "ecclesial communities". THAT, by the way, was the reason for this particular "clarification": certain people were referring to various denominations as "Sister Churches", with all that implies (most particularly, that their Eucharist was valid, and therefore, intercommunion was possible). At a secondary level, the term was being used inappropriately in a manner which implied that there could be more than one "Catholic Church" in the sense of a Church that constitutes the fullness (katholike) of the Christian faith (the Ignatian definition). As the Church is the Body of Christ, and as Christ is one, the Church likewise is one. To sum up, I have always used the term "Sister Churches" in a proper and appropriate manner, fully congruent with the definition provided by the Congregation. Having heard both Cardinal Cassidy and Cardinal Kaspar lecture on the subject, I have adhered to their concept, and therefore, I hope you will agree, reflect the mind of the Church in this matter.
Dear Stuart,
Thank you for your gracious reply. While I’m leaving the remaining debate to you and Bob where it belongs, I found your final response to me extremely constructive and enlightening regarding questiosn between the two of us. You really rose to the occasion. We aren’t in total agreement, but I understand and appreciate your position far better than before.
A final side note — I used the phrase “apostolic successon” as shorthand with some trepidation because I am familiar with the Eastern view on such matters and didn’t want to get sidelined in a debate over it. In fact, I largely agree with the Orthodox view, and consider it one of the more important insights I have gleaned from reading Orthodox writings. It is one point at which a charge of Western “legalism” has some justification, as too many Anglicans (and, I suspect, Western RCs) reduce that succession to a matter of respectable episcopal pedigree and what one priest I know tartly terms “a magic air of hands.” The first generation of English Reformers (albeit ironically from a Calvinist standpoint, which might have jettisoned the historic episcopacy altogether if not for the Crown) rightly warned that the true apostolic succession is the Tradition of the Church, the right understanding of Scripture as received from and expounded by the patristic Fathers, not just a tactile succession of official lineage.
As a general rule of thumb, one can always tell whether a church is the genuine article, or a wacko spin-off of episcopi vagantes (“non-canonical” for the Orthodox versions) by its need to, and degree to which it, defensively post on web and print on publications lengthy lists (with mind-numbing supporitng documentation) of episcopal succession for their sacramental orders.
>>Compare the definition of purgatory given at the Councils of Lyons II and Florence with those found in the CCC and the statements on the subject made by Pope John Paul II. Notice that as expressed in the medieval councils, purgatory is (a) a place where (b) sinners undergo PAINFUL purification in MATERIAL fires as a consequence of temporal PUNISHMENT for sin. Today, purgatory is a state, where sinners are purified. No mention of pain, no mention of material fires, no mention of punishment. Which is “purgatory lite”, and essentially something to which the Orthodox would have concurred in 1274. On the Filioque, see the “Clarification on the Procession of the Holy Spirit” written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and compare its “the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” with Florence’s “the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son as from a single source”. Geez. Bob–when the Latins drop the Filioque because it is not congruent with Catholic doctrine (the USCCB is working that one right now), when the Pope says that the uninterpolated Creed is the only ecumenically-binding symbol of faith, what more do you want?< < Here are the quotes that I found in the Catechism: 1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come. 1498 Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory. 1475 In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things." In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin. 1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. Notice that the CCC still references Florence and Trent, and #1498 mentions temporal punishement. I don't see in this definition a repudiation since it references Florence. >>>This is the blue print for sexual anarchy.
Only if you feel that you need to be bound by Law, and not by the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit. < << I think the fruits of contraception are evident in the sexual revolution in our time. >>>>>When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, ” John 16:13
And what do you think that means?<<< Just what it says, that the Spirit will guide the Church into all truth.
>>This is the red herring followed by the SSPX. Don’t go there.<< My SSPX friends have warned me that my views were borderline non-Catholic, so I guess I am not as big of a rigorist as you may think! ;)
>>>Just what it says, that the Spirit will guide the Church into all truth.<<< Precisely. And how does He do that?
>>>As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.<<< Notice what is missing: Purgatory is not a "place", sinners are not subject to material fire, and do not suffer physical pain, That was part of Florence and of Trent, and a major part of the Orthodox objection to the doctrine. Now, notice how we deal with this in OUR Catechism (Light for Life, Vol.I, The Mystery Believed, pp.64, 101-102): "Death will be swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor 15:54). We sing of the risen Christ, "by death He conquered death" (Paschal Troparion). The solidarity of the human race extends beyond death to life. Our prayers help those who have died, and we are joined to them by their intercession.[12] One of the most ancient prayers for the dead, which concludes the litany for the departed, asks God to "give rest to the soul of your departed servant (name), in a place of light, a place of refreshment, a place of repose, where there is no pain, sorrow or sighing. . .Forgive every sin committed by them in word, deed and thought, for there is no one who lives and does not sin". Those who have achieved union with God may also help us by their prayers. This teaching, called the "Communion of Saints", is a positive affirmation that even death cannot the bonds of Christian love we have for one another in the Lord. NOTE 12: The basic concept of the purification of souls is based on 2 Macc 12:39-45 and 1 Cor 3:11-15. The need for purification was taught by several Fathers of East and West (among the earliest, St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7.6). The Western Church, after St. Augustine (City of God, 21.13. 24) elaborated this concept in the doctrine of "purgatory", a place of painful purification, which was defined by the councils of Lyons and Florence which were called to ratify unions with the Byzantine Church. The Council of Trent reaffirmed these definitions but forbade fantastic descriptions. The Eastern Churches have been reluctant to speak with assurance of a separate place of purification or to describe that purification as "painful". Yet none have been more devoted to prayer that the departed be granted rest with the saints. In any dialogue on this question, Roman Catholics must admit that the description of purgatory was influenced by medieval mythology. Sounds like our bishops, who approved this book, stand a lot closer to me than to the CCC. And, if the CCC is authoritative for all of us, why bother with a separate Catechism in the first place?
>>Sounds like our bishops, who approved this book, stand a lot closer to me than to the CCC. And, if the CCC is authoritative for all of us, why bother with a separate Catechism in the first place?<< Thanks for the quote, and for calling my attention to it. As previously stated, it is one thing to say that we don't think in the same catergorizes of the west, it is another to say the west is herectical.
>>>Thanks for the quote, and for calling my attention to it. As previously stated, it is one thing to say that we don’t think in the same catergorizes of the west, it is another to say the west is herectical.>>>
Is it either/or with you? Any critique whatosever of Latin theology or usage is tantamount to declaring the West heretical? That’s a big leap of logic. No, Bob, all I want is for each Church to respect the theology, spirituality and doctrine of the others, as long as they are not UNIVERSALLY perceived as heretical.
I don’t think it is that big of a leap. I think the eastern theology can be stated positively without reference to the shortcoming. (or percieved shortcomings) of the west.
As to you question as to how the Spirit guides the church, it is through the living tradition both written and oral.
>>>I don’t think it is that big of a leap. I think the eastern theology can be stated positively without reference to the shortcoming. (or percieved shortcomings) of the west.< << So much for the entire discipline of comparative theology. I suppose, then, that you do not approve of Latin theologians such as Yves Congar who frequently and pointedly compared the Western Church to the Eastern Church in his efforts to bring the former back to its patristic roots? What about John Paul II, who wrote Orientale Lumen for the Latins, not for us (though I think a lot of us need to read it closely, since we apparently don't believe what the late Pope said). >>>As to you question as to how the Spirit guides the church, it is through the living tradition both written and oral.<<< And what is Tradition? (Hint: Go back to our catechism).
>No, Bob, all I want is for each Church to respect the theology, spirituality and doctrine of the others, as long as they are not UNIVERSALLY perceived as heretical.
This would be an improvement.
Dear Stuart,
I’m going to duck back in here briefly after all. The point Bob is raising is the one that I too have tried to raise. It is one thing to practice comparative theology; that is a constructive enterprise and ought to be done. It is another thing if the comparisons are polemical — invariably critical of one side as inferior and the other as superior, aimed at proving one side wrong and the other right — as opposed to seeking dispassionate and objective statement of what each side holds, in order to increase mutual understanding and charity. The works of Conger and John Paul II you cite adopt the former approach, not the latter.
I offer a small example to illustrate the difference. Yesterday I received my monthly parish newsletter, in which Fr. Ousley discussed sacramental confession. In it he mentioned that because in Anglican practice, unlike in (Western) Roman Catholic practice, there is not a category of mortal sins for which confession is mandatory, the Anglican emphasis is more “pastoral,” whereas the Roman one is more “juridical.” There is a tremendous difference in tone and outlook between putting the matter that way and criticizing the Roman church as “legalistic,” a far more perjorative, loaded, and judgmental term. “Juridical” describes an objective structure and process (aimed at realization of justice, a good objective), whereas “legalistic” describes a mindset that wrongly abuses rather than rightly uses the juridical. “Legalistic” is thus personally critical in a way that “juridical” is not, carrying overtones of stereotypical Pharisaism. (And the RC could agree in good conscience with the term “juridical,” while arguing that this is not exhaustive of the RC approach, and that even the juridical has a pastoral dimension to it.)
Of course, there are some Western Christians (and Eastern ones too) who are legalistic, and can rightly be criticized as such. It is the blanket generalizaton of an entire church that is objectionable.
it is quit intereting to hear all you have contributed but i pray you use condoms next time although the pleasure is not there but its not worth dying for.All magas are important to us so use condoms.
>>>There is a tremendous difference in tone and outlook between putting the matter that way and criticizing the Roman church as “legalistic,” a far more perjorative, loaded, and judgmental term. “Juridical” describes an objective structure and process (aimed at realization of justice, a good objective), whereas “legalistic” describes a mindset that wrongly abuses rather than rightly uses the juridical. “Legalistic” is thus personally critical in a way that “juridical” is not, carrying overtones of stereotypical Pharisaism. <<< James, Point taken. I will be more precise in the future. "Juridical" is better overall, and I will employ that term except when, of course, I am dealing with real leagalism. As for Pharisaism, I really don't like the term myself, because, contrary to the stereotype of the Pharisee that we get by reading the Gospels out of their orginal cultural context, the Pharisees were not mindless legal nitpickers intent on proving their own righteousness under the law. In fact, Jesus and the Pharisees were pretty close to each other in their basic objective of delivering Israel from exile and opening the doors of the kingdom to the poor. They differed in the means they employed, because the Pharisees saw themselves bound by the Covenant to uphold the Law, whereas Jesus being the Son of God, could both fulfill and transcend the Law in his own purpose, hence the necessity of a New Covenant. If we look at the Pharisees from the historical record (and this keeps growing as new sources are uncovered and scholars such as E.P Sanders and Geza Vermes take a more multidisciplinary approach), we find first that we are dealing with a polyvariant movement in which there are many different types of Pharisee, all joined together by a set of baseline assumptions that included a belief in the afterlife, belief in a messianic eschatology, opposition to the high priestly clans and the Temple authorities (without actually abandoning the Temple altogether), and a belief that study of Torah and observance of the Law were both substitutes for Temple worship AND the means by which the coming of the Messiah could be invoked. Thus, the Pharisees believed very seriously that "when two sit together with Torah, the Shekinah lies between them" and "if the Sabbath could be truly kept for three weeks in a row, the Messiah would come". To help the process, the Pharisees sought to "put a fence around the Law", in order to ensure that one would not inadvertantly violate it, and also to make the Law more attainable for ordinary people. Thus, e.g., the Mosaic injunction against traveling outside the home on Sabbath was ameliorated by erecting a covered pavilion running from house to house, allowing neighbors to visit each other and thus to share common meals prepared beforehand (this is still done, in vestigal form, in Chassidic neighborhoods in Brooklyn--a special line is strung from houses and telephone poles to create a 'virtual pavilion"). Where Pharisees differed among themselves was the means by which the goal would be achieved. Gamaliel, leader of one major school, was essentially a pietist who believed that the Pharisees should lead by example and not use compulsion. At the other end of the spectrum was Shamai, who believed that in order to invoke the eschaton, force could be used to "make" people behave righteously. I assume that the majority of Pharisees actually fell somewhere between these two poles. When viewed in this light, one can easily reconcile why some Pharisees would view Jesus' attitude towards the Law with suspicion, even alarm, while others became early (if occasionally covert) followers. One can imagine a good Shamaite actually following the Master and the boys around the countryside, and spying on them to see whether they are picking grain on Sabbath, or healing the sick, or making unorthodox noises about what is required to enter the Kingdom of God. On the other hand, a follower of Gamaliel would take a more laid-back, wait-and-see approach. Saul of Tarsus is a conundrum, since he claims to be a follower of Gamaliel, yet acts like a Shamaite. This just shows how little we still know about the nuances of Second Temple Judaism, along with how puzzling and polarizing a figure Jesus of Nazareth must have been to his contemporaries.
>>And what is Tradition? (Hint: Go back to our catechism).<< Sorry, not going to play this game. If you want to give a catechatical quote then please do so. The briefest, and perhaps the best definition of what tradition is was given by St. Vincent of Lerins, a bishop who wrioes that "we must hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all" (Common, 2). Thus, the reason to be against contraception.
Dear Stuart,
Thanks for your response. I used the phrase “stereotypical Pharisaism” precisely to distinguish the stereotype from the real Pharisees. My pastor Fr. Ousley as usual hits the nail precisely and concisely on the head in saying that the error of the Scriptural Pharisees was to live for virtue as an end in itself rather than as a means by which to draw closer to the living God.
The “virtual pavilion” (actually, a virtual household) to which you refer is called an “erev.” The same thing is set up weekly by Hasidic Jews (with cooperation from city officials) in my old stomping grounds of Rogers Park in NE Chicago. Apropos of another blog, apparently the city doesn’t find them as scary as certain Canadian airlines.
>>>Sorry, not going to play this game.< << Dialectics aren't your style, eh? (So what's wrong with answering a question with a question?). Plato and the Fathers would be disappointed in you--they loved this sort of thing. >>>If you want to give a catechatical quote then please do so.< << I'd rather hear what you think it is. In your own words. >>>The briefest, and perhaps the best definition of what tradition is was given by St. Vincent of Lerins, a bishop who wrioes that “we must hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” (Common, 2).< << Close, but not nearly complete. Nice try, though. So, going back to the Vincentian canon, just what was believed "by all peoples, in all places, at all times"? If you study the matter, and approach it honestly, you come up with a very short list, and most of the things you would consider "de fide" aren't on it. >>>Thus, the reason to be against contraception. <<< One can be against something and yet still tolerate it under economy. Hence the Orthodox allow "second marriage" while upholding the integrity of one sacramental marriage in a lifetime. Moreover, if you were so hot to trot for the tradition regarding childbirth, you would have to oppose all efforts to space or limit the number of children, regardless of how it was done. This, in fact, was the teaching of the Latin Church well into this century--even the so-called "rhythm method" was frowned upon (but tolerated, perhaps because it didn't work). The modern RC doctrine of family planning is an artifact of the post-conciliar era, a response to the fact that the toothpaste was out of the tube.
>>>My pastor Fr. Ousley as usual hits the nail precisely and concisely on the head in saying that the error of the Scriptural Pharisees was to live for virtue as an end in itself rather than as a means by which to draw closer to the living God.<<< Fourth Sunday before Lent, Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee. For some reason, I always get the impression that people are missing the point, leaving Church giving thanks to God that they aren't like that Pharisee over there!
>>Dialectics aren’t your style, eh? (So what’s wrong with answering a question with a question?). Plato and the Fathers would be disappointed in you–they loved this sort of thing.<< Tradition: The ongoing unity in the Church's life by which the Holy Spirit continually expresses God's truth to us and each succeeding generation througn one or another outward form (Scriptures, liturgy, Fathers, etc.).
Answer to Fr. Meyendorff
I know there hasn’t been much discussion on this thread in awhile, but I thought the comments on this blog were worth noting.
God bless,
Bob,
Thanks for the link.
According to the blog, Father Meyendorff wrote the following: “[B]oth the New Testament and Church tradition consider continence as an acceptable form of family planning.” I am unaware of any passage in the New Testament which approves of “continence as an acceptable form of family planning.” The only passage that I can think of that even comes close is 1 Corinthians 7:5, which reads as follows: “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
This passage obviously approves of periodic continence, but the purpose is so that the couple may devote themselves to prayer, not to prevent the conception of children. I am not saying that NFP is sinful; I am just saying that it is not considered in the New Testament. I believe the good father is stretching the meaning of this passage if this is his reference. If it is not, I am at a lost to determine what he is referencing.
>>>This passage obviously approves of periodic continence, but the purpose is so that the couple may devote themselves to prayer, not to prevent the conception of children. I am not saying that NFP is sinful; I am just saying that it is not considered in the New Testament. I believe the good father is stretching the meaning of this passage if this is his reference. If it is not, I am at a lost to determine what he is referencing.<<< GL has hit upon a key point, and one which Bob has not answered so far. Yes, it is true that prior to 1930, no Apostolic Church or ecclesial community had ever approved "artificial" means of contraception. But by the same token, no Church or ecclesial community had ever approved "natural" means of contraception. The Roman Catholic Church did not approve of limiting childbirth in any way, because, in accordance with their Augustinian stance, sex is only legitimized by procreation. Now, of course, pastoral realism meant that in practice the Church did not follow what it preached, but it never gave official sanction to the "rhythm method" or any other form of "family planning". This is usually overlooked by advocates of natural family planning because it destroys their appeal to tradition, while failing to note that oikonomia can, over time, become part of Tradition, as witness the Orthodox recognition of "remarriage" by economy even while upholding the Tradition of one sacramental marriage in a lifetime. As for the link that Bob referenced, I did not find the assessment of Fr. Meyendorff particularly profound, nor the tone it took with regards to the Torodes particularly eirenic. Apparently this is one of those "if not for us then against us" type of sites.
Fearing that Russell may be offended that there have not been enough post to this thread he started ( ;-) ), I decided to add one more.
See Even virility has its limits. Albert Mohler has written on the need to encourage young adults to marry and begin families. The article to which I link helps explain why waiting later to begin a family has its consequences. As some you know, my youngest child, who was conceived when I was 43 and when my wife was 39 has a chromosonal disorder. We love her with all our heart and would not give her up for the world and we are still open to having more if that is God’s will, but we definitely regret using contraception when we were younger and the risk of such abnormalities was lower.
Dear Stuart:
Sorry I am late to this party (but I brought my own lampshade)!
If you have a chance, I would love your clarification on some parameters of oikonomia. I am intrigued by this conversation but am still uncertain as to its breadth of application.
If I understand correctly (and please excuse me if I missed or misread a relevant post), you relay that oikonomia allows the Church to approve sinful conduct, in certain cases, if it may be thought likely to avoid an even more sinful alternative (please correct me if this is an inaccurate summation).
Several questions to flesh out a better understanding of oikonomia (please answer as you see fit):
1. Is it correct to say that, via oikonomia, the Church condones present, real sin, in the hope of avoiding future, potential sin?
2. In the use of oikonomia, does the priest transform “sin” into “non-sin”? Or does the sinful act retain its sinful nature after (or during) the application of oikonomia?
3. If oikonomia is the condoning of a lesser/present sin to avoid a greater/future sin, how does this apply to most US contraception? Is poverty or hardship or loss of luxury a great/future sin? Is not rather the application of oikonomia to most US contraceptors the condoning of a real/present sin so as to avoid future (non-sinful) difficulties in life?
4. Should the Church premeditatedly condone sin to avoid difficulties in life? Is this the way of Christ or the way of the world? Are not difficulties, trials and hardships the very path of salvation via Theosis? Are not worldly comforts, passions and pleasures the very snares of the enemy?
5. Is not the use of oikonomia significantly more liberal in effect than the Catholic dogma of indulgences? Indulgences forgive sins previously committed, and presently repented of, outside the approval of the Church, wherein oikonomia preemptively forgives sins yet to be committed, not repented of, and within the approval of the Church? Do we not owe an apology to our dear Catholic friends?
6. Can oikonomia be applied to other sexual sins (such as masturbation, fornication, heterosexual sodomy)? Can the priest approve fornication for Orthodox teenagers (present sin) under the hope that it may avoid even greater alternative sin (multiple sex partners, AIDs, etc.)?
7. Can oikonomia be applied to condone sins such as murder or rape (if it were likely to avoid a greater potential sin-perhaps multiple murders and rapes)? If not, why not?
8. Can a priest sinfully over-apply oikonomia? If so, by what standard would we so determine?
9. Does the Church today recognize any sexual standards as binding over the married couples own personal opinion? Or does each couple determine for themselves (with ratification from a self-chosen spiritual father) what portions of Orthodox sexual standards to which they will be bound (the remainder will be exempted them via oikonomia)?
10. Did pre-1900 Orthodox have so broad a view of oikonomia (to have the Church condone in advance the commission of grave sins) or did they have a view more limited in scope (perhaps concerning severity of asceticism in fasting, etc.)
I apologize for the number of questions (I got carried away), but the consequence of this purported dogma is truly brobdingnagian.
I am presently unable to reconcile it with recognition of a transcendent moral order, prevailing status of the paradosis, rule of bishops, etc. It appears to me to be all but indistinguishable from the contemporary relativism (indeed solipsism) of the Protestantism from which I have fled.
But perhaps I misunderstand (and await your assistance).
A Sinner,
BGM
It is my understanding that oikonomia does not do away with the moral law, but rather may loosen the praxis in a given instance. I disagree with the contention above that it can be applied to contraception as well as divorce & remarriage. That the EO have second and third marriages is not a point of contention, but as EC we accept, and are governed by, the annulment process.
I read your page, you got a nice product. Thanks for the information on the Dogmatic Topic of Intercommunion. I studied at an Orthodox-Anglican Monastery in Greece for some time before going to graduate school at Oxford, so I got a special place in my heart for Eastern Monasticism with a little Latin touch, of course! However, now I am a High Anglican Bishop (we celebrate a Tridentine Style Liturgy), who has valid lines from the Orthodox Churches. I am very moved by your page, and I recently got the book a certain Deacon Andre Marie (of the St. Benedict Center) mentioned (thanks for the referral) a very Hot! Roman Catholic Theology Book, that is troubling my current position called “Communicatio in Sacris: The Roman Catholic Church against Intercommunion with non-Catholics.”
http://www.lulu.com/content/1753466
I am thinking of converting over to the Traditional Latin Roman Catholic Church and now talking with a Bishop in France who gave this book of Dr. DeTucci “Two thumbs up!” I must confess I am very close to joining Prime Minister Tony Blair in his voyage from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism (who I actually met once at the Canterbury Abbey of St. Augustine in England):
http://www.oxford.anglican.org/files/blairs_500.jpg
I personally give Dr. DeTucci TWO THUMBS WAY UP for his Patristic and Dogmatic Scholarship! Indifferentism is a Major Problem, and it has caused the Mass Murder and Holocaust of Abortion today, sadly to say.
I would love to review any Mainstream Periodical that has read through DeTucci’s Book, but I may write my own yet. I love to read first more established Scholars, you seem to be a top notch scholarly periodical online. Any degrees? I studied at Oxford, and thank God, I realized the Main Anglican Succession is invalid. That’s why I had communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, but I am rethinking my Economy of Sacramental Grace thanks to Doctor DeTucci (who I heard studied at the Lateran in Rome).
And thank you!
Sincerely in Christ Our Lord,
+ Most Reverend Bishop Dr. Joseph John Violet of St. Vitus, M.A., D.D., Ph.D.
London, England
P.S. Doctor-Master (are you Irish?), I meant to ask you, if you had any Communication with the so-called “Latin Tridentine Church” headed by Bishop Michael Cox in Ireland? I had the pleasure of meeting the famous Hollywood Personality, that is, the priestess-Bishop Sinead O’Connor (better known as the Hollywood Pop Singer from Ireland):
http://images.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/0499/thumb/o_connor.jpg
She celebrates an Intercommunion Service of the Latin Tridentine Mass, and I am not sure if Bishop Clarence Kelly, the Scholar-Bishop of Oyster Bay, New York, has written a review of her lineage? I heard she comes from the controversial lineage of the late Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc of Vietnam (the same line that Bishops Daniel Dolan and Donald Sanborn claim their fame to). Any insights?
“To suggest that birth control is evil or perverse because it undermines God’s sovereignty is to underestimate God’s sovereignty and reject our responsibility to serve him wisely.”
Now instead of “Birth control” try substituting ANY of the following:
Abortion
Gun Violence
Slavery
War
Etc…
And you come to realize that this is just another pious platitude that means very little, says nothing, but really sounds clever and well informed.