www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why I feel inferior to Greek Orthodox

Dear Rilian,

"No good can come from evil" is not my position. My position is "One cannot ever will to do evil," which, I believe, is scriptural, or at least Pauline (Romans 3:8).

That's the Catholic position as well. If an action is determined to be bad, one can't do it, no matter what the good results.

Now, if you want to delve into Thomistic moral theory, there are some very helpful distinctions made. Sometimes it looks like someone is doing something bad for a good result, when it isn't really the case. Take the example of a knife going into your abdomen. That looks like an evil act, right? But it depends: what is the person doing it for? If it is a doctor doing it to remove a diseased appendix for the sake of saving your life, it's good. If it is a mugger doing it for the sake of removing your wallet, it's bad. But there are more distinctions to be made. If it is a doctor removing your diseased appendix so that he can have enough money to buy cocaine, it's a bad act. If it's a doctor removing your diseased appendix to save your life, but in the middle of a petting zoo (unnecessarily), then it's a bad thing.

The cases I give above illustrate the three ways Thomas looks at an act: 1)Object, 2)End, 3) Circumstance. If any of these three are bad, the action cannot be done. The meaning of #3 is obvious, and so is #2 (motive behind the action). #1 is tricky: the object of an act is that which is chosen by the agent. It determines what sort of act it is. For example, if I tell you that the Pistons won the championship, you can't yet tell if I'm lying. You need to know what action I am choosing. If I choose to tell the truth, but mistaken, then the object is truth-telling. If I choose to lie (to play a trick on you or something), then the object is lying.

Now, if object, end, or circumstance is wrong, the act can't be chosen. In the case of contraception, the end may be good (delay of childbirth for the sake of the good of the family), the circumstance of the act may be good (a marital act done with decorum in the bedroom, not on a parkbench), but the object is wrong, that which is chosen: to have consequence- and discipline-free sex. (The object can be expressed a number of ways, but this will do for now.) Since the object is wrong, one can never contracept.

I anticipate a possible objection: "What if the object is to show one's love for one's spouse?" The problem is that we can never divorce the subjective intention of the person from the objective reality. One can't love another in any old way one feels like. I can't love my wife by beating her, for instance. Similarly, one cannot genuinely love by means of a sexual act that is not a free and complete gift of self. The contraceptive act would always have at its core a refusal, a language of "no" superimposed over an action of "yes."

As my wife and I have journeyed into our acceptance of this teaching, we have come to see it from the inside. I tell you, it has been revelatory. I no longer think of her as a means to my pleasure, but as first of all a mother. The intimate life of our marriage is now firmly connected to the divine plan, without reservation. It doesn't seem at all weird to precede an act of marital union with prayer. The teaching forces me to look at her as person in her wonderful wholeness, without objectification. It's the crown jewel of Christian morality. We're convinced more and more of its truth every year.

(I am not a pacifist, but to explain why would take another few pages.)

It is interesting that both Harmon and Rilian use extreme cases in their arguments: women whose lives would be endangered, using [highly ineffective] barrier methods.
In fact very few of the Orthodox or Catholic users of contraceptives are in such desperate straits. Most are using contraceptives for materialistic or selfish reasons, and most are using methods which at least sometimes are abortifacient.
So. What do you guys think about the normalization of contraception [for that is what it is; just look around at the family sizes in your congregations]?
-Daniel, still waiting for the new baby

I said no such thing. On pages 1 and 2 of this thread, I posted my disagreement with the Roman Catholic position on artificial birth control. On page three of this thread, here is what I posted about the Orthodox position on artificial birth control, which I agree with:

Now, as for your new question:

In many ways, I think it is a good thing. It allows people the ability to avoid poverty and to raise their children with enough necessities and comforts to make a good and successful life.

On the other hand, it can be a strong vehicle for encouraging selfishness.

And, I think many people use artificial birth control for a mix selfless and selfish reasons. That, however, does make it something to be banned. Instead, it means that it must be better and properly used.

Now, I'm going back to taking a break. The only reason I responded, Daniel, is that you said that I said something which I did not.

--John

I find it interesting how issues of life are woven in throughout this discussion on the sense of inferiority felt by the members of various churches. My own sense is that contraceptive liturgies are ALMOST as bad as contraceptive marriages. Both fail to produce the fruit of new life, whether spiritual or physical.

My hope for all RC's is that Pope Benedict XVI is able to help rectify both situations, especially leveraging Pope John Paul the Great's well-developed Theology of the Body, Familiaris Consortio and the "Gospel of Life", as well as his own research in "The Spirit of the Liturgy".

The sexual act has great meaning in marriage, where two lovers bound by vows express their love in an act of total and open self-giving that produces new life, at least potentially. Why insert a lie into the language of lovers by saying "I accept all of you, except your fertility." or "I give you everything that I am, except my fertility."? Is there not something wonderfully organic, beautiful and iconological - thus fundamentally Orthodox - about this crowning moment of personal martyrdom, which mirrors Christ's own self-giving on the cross?

This icon of union with God, however, becomes fundamentally flawed when contraception is inserted into the mix. To use an anlogy that will offend some, it is like the use of acrylics when writing icons. No doubt great beauty can come from the effort and I have personally witnessed wonderful churches that are filled with acryllic icons, but its full meaning is somehow diminished by the loss of organic, created materials which are offered up and redeemed through this sacred and liturgical artform. God's artistry and original design for the sacred act of marriage are also diminished when artificiality pollutes that which is natural, created and organic. It becomes even more radically evil when those artificial means actually destroy life at various stages of development (such as the pill and other abortafacient contraceptives).

The only additional point that I would offer - from experience - is that considering the more difficult and challenging moral situations is rarely the best means to determine constant principles, since they tend to be loaded with emotion which can cloud a person's judgement.

Peace,

Gordo

Well said, Gordo.

Even if you did have to compare acrylic icons to contraception

Isn't it hilarious that unmarried guys know so much about marriage?

Gordo, Uh thanks for sticking up for us, I guess. Your analogy of acrylic paints is a bit of a stretch, though. I mean are you saying that acrylics are uncreated? They are pigment and binder, like any other paint...
And Pavloosh- John Paul the Great was unmarried and he did a pretty good job with it...

And now, for a little story, based on a composite of real people:

One family is Orthodox. They attend a church which has beautiful egg tempera icons [ ]. They abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year, and observe all the canonical fasts [indeed the wife has several recipes in her parish Lenten Cookbook]. They give generously to the Church and other charities: over 10%, and participate in church activities. When they married they agreed that one boy and one girl would be the ideal family size. After God blessed them with their son and daughter the father had a vesectomy. After the children were old enough to be in [private] school the mother returned to her career. They live an affluent life, though as I said they are generous in giving. They own a beautiful new home, drive new imported cars, have a substantial bank account and many profitable investments. Every year they find time for a romantic vacation, just the father and mother. It is a good life.

The second family are Roman Catholics. They attend a typical suburban church, built in the 1960s, and possessing nothing of artistic merit. The church does have a "traditional" Mass in English on Sunday, but they rarely are able to rise early enough for it and most often attend the later guitar Mass. They fast only on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, per their Church's minimal regualations, and eat meat on Fridays throughout the year. Early in their marriage, being moved by the words of Christ in the Gospel at Mass, "whoever welcomes one of these little ones in my name welcomes Me", they decided to accept as many children as God gave them. In their twenty years of marriage, they have had a child every two or three years. Money is short, as the wife has stayed home with the children and the husband's income is modest. They live in an overcrowded rundown house, drive old cars, have no money in the bank, and considerable debt. They have no money for their children's college education, but the eldest has been accepted at a small Catholic college, thanks to a combination of scholarships, grants, and student loans. They give what they can to the Church, which is often not much. They have not had a vacation with just the two of them since their honeymoon. For all that, their life is rich and they take great joy in their children.
Life is good.

Now, my questions for you: Which of these families is living in greater grace? Which of them is the more ascetic? On which does God smile?
-Daniel, whose wife has never gone over her due date before, and who writes icons with acrylics

Uh, you're welcome, I guess! :p

I think the analogy works - to a certain extent. (Isn't that true with most anaolgies?) My point is only to say that contraceptive sex is not sex without meaning, but rather sex with diminshed (or disfigured) meaning. Regarding icons, I suppose it depends on how important the meaning of redeemed creation is to the symbol and sacramentality of the icon. With the egg tempura method, virtually all of the "kingdoms" of this world (animal, vegetable and mineral) are represented in the icon which, through the redeeming hand and breath of man in prayerful cooperation with the Holy Spirit, becomes a window into the kingdom of heaven.

If acrylic is your favored medium, by all means use it for the greater glory of God! I was only making the point that the full redemptive significance of the icon is diminished through the use of synthetics. Vladislav Andreyev of the Prosopon School is even MORE of a purist in this regard. He thinks the spiritual meaning of acrylics in icons is demonic! I would not go that far at all, although I understand his broader point.

Great story, BTW! Your point is very convincing. My wife and I have friends that definitely fit into the second category - they just had their 7th. Their family is definitely something beautiful for God!!!

Gordo, who thinks that Byzantine Catholics should blend the virtuous elements of both stories into something beautiful for God (beginning with himself)

I would like to apologize to all I have offended and humbly beg your forgiveness. The only point I wished to raise in this was that I feel, as I stated before, there are certain circumstances that allow for economia. This being defined as it says in the Dictionary of Greek Orthodoxy, by Rev. Nicon D. Patrinacos

According to Orthodox Canon Law, the term economia denotes a timely and logically defensible deviation from a canonically established rule for the sake of bringing salvation either within or outside the Church. But this deviation does not extend to the point where it could violate the dogmatic boundaries of the rule in question...economia should be decided upon only by the canonically instituted authority of the Church.

That was really my only point. Sometimes there are difficult individual circumstances that call for specific pastoral provision, and this can be an acceptable and temporary relaxing of the rules that does not call in to question to existence or integrity of the rules. The salvation of the individual and not the rule itself being the primary focus.

I have found the generalizations and comparisons used in this thread to be increasingly inaccurate and troubling. I feel that if I continue to participate it will just be an occasion for me to sin further, so I will withdraw from this thread and board and wish you all well.

Dear Rilian,

I hope you will reconsider and not leave here!

Don't be in the habit of leaving just when the waters get a bit rough. It's not a good sign! (My nose is getting long . . .).

You should know better than to discuss birth control with posters with large families!

Personally, I think that we should all just call Daniel "father" even though he isn't ordained!

Stay with us!

Alex

Actually, Gordo, as most eggs today come from large factory farms, where the animals live miserable cramped lives, I would think the presence of eggs more connotes the demonic! Maybe we need disclaimers: "this icon written only with eggs from free-range organic chickens".
Andreyev writes beautiful icons, but a lot of his ideas are pretty out there, including the idea that his is THE genuine Russian method. I mean, his style is immediately recognizable, so what does that tell you? He is every bit an innovator as anyone else who sets his hand to the work.
I once ordered his prayer book for iconographers; it is a beautiful book, but I could not use it: every prayer began with an exorcism, which involved addressing demonic entities! I think it incredibly dangerous for anyone but an anointed exorcist to do this; lay people should only invoke Christ or the intercession of St Michael or Our Blessed Lady...
By the way, I got the magazine of the Franciscan Brothers of Peace today; it had an icon by the brother who is a student of Andreyev's, It is incredible!
Rilian: don't go away; no one has been rude to you [you should see how bad it can get!] We just disagree, and I hope are exploring this together...[and economia still cannot be invoked to allow sin!]
-Father Daniel

Dear Rilian,

Please don't leave. Your Orthodox input is definitely valued here. Since the purpose of this forum is deeper understanding between the East and West, and how understanding can eventually bring us closer to communion with each other, we often get hurt when we disagree, taking personal offense when others don't understand our respective church's approaches.

Dear All,

I had initially suggested that this topic be moved to its own thread because I know how heated a discussion this can become.

At this point, it seems that both sides have been sufficiently debated and therefore, because it seems to have now strayed sufficiently from the initial subject matter, I will close this thread.

I do invite any posters who wish to continue this topic to start it under its own thread.

In Christ,
Alice