www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Contraception

Andrew,

Ok, I'll admit, if you are a lawyer, you might win your case in a court of law, but you keep saying that you are a Christian, and your case doesn't make sense in the 'court of Christ'. You seem to be confusing many subjects, and hope that by mixing them together you can make people see things your way...untrue! Did you not read what I posted earlier about how even nonabotifatiant contracetives are morally wrong? I said that they deter God plan for creation, an go against his will i.e. a sin. Not only that, they always attribute Massive side effects, that will in the end end up killing the person using them. Oh yeah, You also need to have your stuff check for the fact that their are "Natural" abortifacients, many certain flowers and roots will cause strelilzation or an abortion, and have been in use for thousands of years, so your argument on "natural VS. Artifical" just doesn't hold water. You see, it is whether it could hurt life, or God's(who is life) plan, and being chaste is no sin, but doing"the act" with a purpose to purvert it does not give glory to God, which we should do in all things.

BeckyAnn

Dear BeckyAnn,

I have refrained from responding to your previous posts. I believe that you have thoroughly misunderstood my posts. I hope that you are not accusing me, publically, of being disingenuous. It certainly would not be in the spirit of this esteemed forum. Perhaps I have also misinterpreted your posts.

I made the distinction between "natural" and "artificial" in order to say that said distinction doesn't matter, but rather, it is the act and the context and purpose of that act that matter. That is, for example, why I drew a parallel of NFP/ABC with natural and artificially-assisted births. One is the norm and model but the other is acceptable given the right circumstances and purposes.

Latin Trad (and others) is helping to define the Roman Church's position as to why it is that ANY family planning is seen as gravely suspect, ABC being "intrinsically" evil in ALL cases, and NFP in almost all cases.

I'm trying to explain the Eastern Church's approach to contraception that is also fundamentally negative, but highly dependent upon context and purpose. In that process, I'm attempting to show flaws in the underlying reasoning of the Roman Church's position.

Any ethical system that ignores context and pupose, is at best, bound to be contradictory, as I have tried to point out.

There is no act of intentional abortion or use of abortifacient birth control medicines, potions, lotions, herbs, pills, patches, devices or any other creation of God or man that the Church (East & West) accepts or understands as necessary in ANY case. I have explicitly said that previously and have been a BIG supporter to the pro-life movement.

We'll all have our own sins to answer for in the Court of Christ. My position on this is not one that I'll have to defend. If you remember from Matthew, he'll primarily ask us if we fed the poor, clothed the naked, and visited the prisoners. He's not so worried if our "opinions" on non-abortifacient NFP/ABC were 100% correct.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Latin Trad,

The Albanians outright lied. That's why they were successful! My wife's own grandmother kept one of these hunted souls and made all of those intrinsically evil lies to the German SS about how they hadn't seen any Jews in centuries! Some of the villagers even made intrinsically evil lies while under torture in order to protect them (it's a Balkan tough-guy thing).

You are an existentialist: Same act, same item but its "essence" is different. Show me the "essence," and while you are looking for it, I'll explain the difference between fornication and blessed marital relations based upon context and purpose.

The fathers and I agree that killing is battle is not murder (I'm finally in good company on something). But still, they, in the holy canon that you also ascribe to, assigned a three year excommunication to anyone who had done such. It's not "intrinsically evil" but it surely wasn't "just."

The whole point is that context and purpose may be what tells us if an end or a means is immoral. Does the end and means glorify God? Do they comply with his commandments? Etc.

An engaged man who engages in sexual intercourse with his fiance is guilty of fornication pure and simple. Would you excommunicate him for seven years on the spot (as the holy canon prescribes) or tell him to bring his backside into Church and get married?


In Christ,
Andrew

1) If the Albanians told outright lies, that is their issue of conscience.

2) I don't see how ANY of the arguments that you just gave have anything to do with whether contraception is immoral or not.

Are you trying to argue that no actions are objectively good or evil, and that "purpose" and "context" fully determine the moral quality of a given action?
We distinguish between the "moral object", the "end" and the "circumstances". The "moral object" is the act in its moral definitude, e.g. "fornication" (as you said, "fornication pure and simple"). The end is the "purpose" for which one chooses to fornicate, and the circumstances are the surrounding "context". It seems that you have eliminated the moral object, choosing to focus only on the end and the circumstances. If there are no moral objects, then ANY action may be permissible, given the right end and circumstances. For example, let's return the the engaged man--what if he has some good "end" in mind (e.g. comforting himself after the Jets lose), and what if "circumstances" appear to mitigate his guilt in fornicating? In your system, you would have nothing to fall back on to convince him that the action is wrong.

I am an existentialist? LOL!! I am a Thomist. Existentialism is the OPPOSITE--they don't believe in "essences" at all, and reduce morality to pure voluntarism (based upon dictates of the will instead of the reason).

If you are determined to see contraception as a "gray area," however, then I will not be able to convince you otherwise. If the witness of the Fathers and your own hierarchs does not convince you that Onanism is impermissible, and you insist on retreating onto very shaky rationalizations, then I can only pray for you.

Please do the same for me.

LatinTrad

Dear Andrew,

No, I think you understood me quite well, although I think as LatinTrad put it, you just wish to see the subject as a grey area. The point that you trying to just prove the Eastern views is quite biased, as I am Greek Catholic, and have friends and family who are the same and they agree with me. Yeah, and the "flaws" in the R.C. mentallity, DO take into consideration purpose and context, to see for yourself, just read Fr. T.J. O'Donnel's Medicine and Christian Morallity. You profess that you are pro-life
yet you continue to argue that it is all in the context whether or not it is a sin,Ok, techinically in the R.C. for something to be a "Mortal Sin" it has to (1) be serious, (2) you had to wilfully choose it, and (3), you have to know that it is wrong. Now that would work if you believed that, but I was always under the impression that during Divine Liturgy we ask forgiveness for "these sins, whether in word or deed, in knowledge or in ignorance", so see we ARE responsible for these deeds.

Oh, Yeah, By the way, with your philosophy, about the fact that it means more to clothe the naked, feed the hungary etc. does that mean I can be a practicing Lesbian and still be in communion with God because that is really what he is going to judge us on, and not our "opinoins" on other issues?

BeckyAnn

Excuse me! But this was no opinion or philosophy but the DIRECT command of Our Lord!!! It is what we will ultimately be judged upon. You might look around and see that there are many other issues of human life to be concerned with as well as abortion.

Ok, I take it that part was slightlt misunderstood!!!!! I am one of the biggest adovocates for the corperal works of mercy! Mother Teresa is like my FAVORITE person!!! I was merely stating that although we can perform these works to help admonish our sin, other things matter as well. My sincerest apologies for the misunderstandig!

Apologetically,

BeckAnn

Without living a Christian moral life, feeding the hungry will avail us NOTHING on the last day, Brian.

I am very uncomfortable with people who say that we shouldn't focus so much on abortion. Unless we restore a respect for the most innocent life, how are we gonna get people to care about the lot of the poor? It all comes from the same pot.

LatinTrad

Dear Latin Trad,

Ofcourse we should focus on abortion, but ALSO the culture of sex that permeates every living moment in the secular world today, especially, the world of our youth, and whose consequences tragically often time result in abortion. The two NEED to go hand in hand.

Pat Robertson, the Evangelical minister put it quite correctly once by saying that there are many different demons in the world today, and that the preoccupation with sex is just a manifestation of one more demon.

In Christ,
Alice

Thank You LatinTrad! The point I was trying to make(although I fear I didn't suceed) was that doing the corperal works of mercy without love, or not realizing that we have to be sorry for our sins , does no good. I hope this clears things up.

BeckyAnn

Brethren,

What I'll attempt to do in the course of the next week or so is to post teachings from several esteemed sources in the contemporary Orthodox Church. Breck (OCA-St. Vladimir's Seminary), Evdokimov (St. Sergius Institute, Paris), Harakas (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese), and an anonymous writer published in an official teaching text of the Church of Albania, subsequently republished by Syndesmos, the worldwide Orthodox Youth Movement. Also, there is a teaching document published by the OCA, appoved by her Synod of Bishops as part of their All-American Council in 1991.

I think that Ghazar has amply provided us with some of the more ancient opinions. Some of the modern commentators that I will post also speak to the ancient sources. As I commented upon them, they largely refer to the abortifacient potions, etc, (pharkakeia), which I think we ALL agree to be abhorent in ALL cases. In some cases they refer to purely contraceptive actions, but give a context wherein a man is trying "to cheat his wife out of a child." Again, an abhorent use of ABC or NFP.

In the mean time, allow me to add fuel to the fire:

Please keep in mind the narrow example that I originally proposed and add to it the following example wherein Eastern eikonomia might see to understand and accept a sparing use of artificial non-abortifacient birth control (more correctly called "conception control").

We have an adulterous husband and his faithful unkowing wife wife. Perhaps she has been with child and so they have not shared conjugal a relationship for many months. He confesses his adultery and the fact that he is now suffering from a sexually transmitted disease as a result of it. He accepts all Church-imposed pennances and looks forward to ultimately re-entering the communion of the Church. His loving wife, in Christ's light far more than he, likewise forgives the wretch. They both ultimately draw closer together and both seek to renew the marital bond in all aspects, while attempting to avoid transference of his infection to the uninfecterd wife. Their situation might also be one wherein a presbyter/bishop would understand sparing use of ABC for the sake of the wife, primarily, and the wretched husband, secondarily.

We can clearly see how abstinence would be the model, but that eikonomia might accept the compromise proposed above.

Again the parallel to a second marriage comes to mind. The allowance of a second marriage in itself is a condescension to human weakness. It is a penitential service if both parties are marrying a second time. But if there is an Orthodox partner in the wedding who is being married for the first time, the full joyous celebration and crowning takes place, for the sake of the partner entering their first marriage! Very interesting.

In Christ,
Andrew

Andrew, this is inadmissible from a Catholic POV, since contraception, in and of itself, is a violation of God's law (NOT simply a deviation from the monastic "ideal").

In the situation you just described, the Church could no more allow artificial birth control than she could allow "sparing" or "consciencious" adultery to wives whose husbands go on extended business trips. The end simply does not justify the means--because the means are immoral in and of themselves. In the situation above, the couple should abstain until the husband is cured of his disease (if he can be cured). If he cannot be cured, and he does not want to infect his wife with the disease, then they must abstain. Just like I must abstain right now, because I'm not married yet. Just like widows must abstain unless and until they remarry. I don't see why it is "a priori" repugnant to admit that sometimes people must abstain.

I emphasize again that chastity is not possible for ANYONE, without the grace of God. I could not be chaste without the grace of God--actually I am quite weak, and a sinner. But God's grace is more than sufficient to keep us living MORAL lives. We are never obliged to resort to immoral means. Let us attribute to God what is rightly His instead of foolishly trusting our own strength.


I will give you another example of the end not justifying an immoral means (it never can, btw). In 1996 (I think), the New York Times ran a big story, lionizing a woman who, as a prisoner, aborted all the babies who were conceived in Auschwitz. She did this to protect their mothers from torture and/or death. Nevertheless, from a Christian point of view, her actions were absolutely unacceptable. Why? Because she killed innocent babies with her own hands. One cannot do that. If the Nazis sin, the Nazis sin--but we cannot sin to prevent others from doing so.

This example is far more severe than the married couple who is having trouble abstaining.


Alice---

AMEN!! to what you said above.


LatinTrad

I also emphasize that the second marriage example does not apply, since a second marriage does not constitute a violation of the Natural or Divine laws, but merely a deviation from the monastic ideal.

Andrew,

You seem to enjoy making up senarios that can so easily be disproven.Your example of an adultorus husband and his loyal wife...like the prodigal son, who even though he repents and is forgiven, the inheritance is spent...i.e. the marital relations that your cheating husband spent. Oh yes by the way those forms of contraception really don't do much good against STD's, and the whole purpose whould be because the man in your scenario can't bring himself to respect his wife enough even now to bring himself to be chaste. I find a common thread in all of your arguments, and that is you spend more time focusing on onconamia, and the man involved, you continually forget what this does to the woman, and I find that sexist.

BeckyAnn
P.S. I look forward to your continuing arguments, I have to have something to do...and this is SOOoo much more interesting than TV.

Ah, the old "complexity" mantra! I used to hear it all the time from my coreligionists back when I was Episcopalian.

Any time we want to justify our deviation from 2,000 years of unbroken Christian Tradition, we just invoke that old "complexity" thang. :p

The ECUSA has this down to a science. They've just "complexitied" their way into tolerance for openly gay bishops and gay marriages. But hey, it's OK, because the "real world" is "magnificently and terrifyingly complex"...right?

BTW, I think your response to BeckyAnn fairly drips condescension.

God bless,

ZT