www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Marriage, Science, and Birth Control

This is an example of Eastern Catholic teaching that resonates with me, an excerpt from Archbishop Raya's book "Crowning: The Christian Marriage":


You will not find dogmatic teaching on this point, or if you do it will contradict other things that you read, because there is no "official position" on the matter.

I would argue that if there is a direct line from artificial birth control to the acceptance of abortion, then the fault lies not in artificial birth control, but in the people who make that distorted connection in their morality.

In the same way that I receive the teachings of the Immaculate Conception. They are a product of Roman mindsets. I don't consider them heretical by any means and respect anybody who believes them as written, and while I do not believe that they explain matters in a way that represents the theology or philosophy of my own patrimony, I would not attempt to force others to change their understanding to match mine, and expect the same in return.

Not all Roman Catholics, however, are lockstep in this teaching of the church, despite how some may frame it. I believe that this article by Scott Steinkerchner, O.P., for example, has some interesting insights: (I only quote the end but recommend the whole article)

http://www.op.org/steinkerchner/hv.html

I don't know. I'm inclined not to agree with this, but it might actually be the case, at least among those who use artificial contraception outside of the context of marriage and have no sense whatsoever of the natural link between sex and procreation. What I do agree with is that the widespread use of artificial contraception has the effect of increasing the extent to which women are sexually objectified. I also think it contributes to a mentality that trivializes sex (think of the hook-up culture, in which it seems that men and women sexually objective each other).

If (like everyone else in the West still young enough to procreate) you've grown up in a culture where the natural link between sex and procreation has been severed by contraception, and replaced with a situation where instead procreation is linked to failed contraception, or the purposeful lack of contraception, where does that put you (on that contraception to abortion continuum) in your estimation, Athanasius?

I like your question. BTW I became a Catholic so I could have my conscience fully formed by the Church not so I could set my own opinion above the Church. If all I wished to do was follow my own conscience I would have remained a Protestant.

The Church can't do all of your thinking for you. Sometimes, it will need you to help form the Conscience of the Church - which is much bigger than any one Papal encyclical.

.

One encyclical? Is that what we're pretending the teaching on birth control spans? As for "the Conscience of the Church"... Is that a real thing? Maybe it is. With those capital letters it almost looks like An Official Thing And Not Only Made Up For The Occasion.

The Church can't do all of your thinking for you. Sometimes, it will need you to help form the conscience of the church - which is much bigger than any one dogma.

Thanks, you're right, that does sound better.

From Archbishop Joseph Raya's Crowning: The Christian Marriage. Discuss.

Archbishop Raya seems to be recognizing the true worth of Marriage, but leaving open the decision to the Holy Father without attempting to persuade him either way on this particular concern, instead focusing on the broader picture.

From my understanding, the mindset of using artificial contraception (or even "natural methods" outside of the mind of the Church, i.e. to prevent pregnancy indefinitely) and all her children do the opposite of what Archbishop Raya teaches, namely: propheting, kingship and queenship, and robing the spouses with the Royal Priesthood of Christ.

Sayedna Joseph's book was not addressed to the Holy See, but was intended (and used as) a marriage preparation manual for the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

How would you interpret his teachings about artificial contraceptive use within marriage? Is he stating that crowning makes a couple capable of acting like Christ and being open to having children or is he saying that crowning gives the couple license to use Artificial contraceptives whenever they choose?

The fullness of the faith would require one make no interventions, natural or unnatural, to prevent or even reduce the likelihood of conceiving children. That is the faith of the Fathers--the means matter not, any intent to control the begetting of children is sinful.

The Church, in this as in all things, does precisely what Sayedna wrote:


So, the Church should constantly uphold this ideal, just as it upholds all the ideals in matters of asceticism (e.g., fasting), without being legally prescriptive. It's mission is to encourage people along the path of holiness, while constantly condescending to human weakness.

The Church teaches that marriage is an eternal sacrament, and allows just one sacramental marriage per lifetime. But the Church also recognizes that celibacy is an heroic vocation not given to everybody, and so it allows non-sacramental remarriages under oikonomia for those who are widowed and for the innocent party in a divorce (I recognize the Latin theology of marriage is different, but we are Eastern Christians, thank you).

Just as a spiritual father might counsel someone not to attempt the full rigor of the Lenten fast, so a spiritual father, taking into consideration the spiritual state of a married couple, might after prayerful discernment with them recommend that they find some method of regulating the number and spacing of their children. This in itself is a condescension to human weakness.

Stepping back from the ideal, the second best step would be some form of natural family planning, but the Church should recognize that may not be possible for all couples, either, and in such cases, non-abortifactant methods of contraception might be used. The objective, of course, is to grow in holiness, so that over time, these condescensions to human weakness might not be necessary. That is the entire purpose of oikonomia. Lacking the concept, the Latin Church has a difficult time grappling with the concept. That is why there is so much emphasis over means and not intention (with all the consequent tying of one's self into theological-philosophical knots). Is a couple that uses natural family planning with the intention of avoiding all pregnancies in order to enjoy an unfettered and materially abundant life better or worse than one that uses condoms in order to space out or limit the number of children they actually do have? You don't hear that discussed very much, because almost the total focus is on the evils of latex.

At the same time, the Western Church holds to a legal understanding of sin as a violation of some divine law or precept, which exacts a penalty. The Eastern Churches, on the other hand, view sin as falling short (hamartia) of perfection. And, insofar as all human beings fall short of perfection, all of us sin. Sin is an illness that affects us all, and the purpose of the Church is not that of moral policeman but of spiritual physician, whose job is to heal us.

The language you use, Carson, including words such as license, indicates you have some difficulty with this conception (no pun intended. Well, OK, yes, I did so intend. Sue me). The fact is, John Chrysostom and the other Eastern Fathers do indeed see marriage as the formation of a domestic church, which endows husband and wife with all of the rights and responsibilities of priesthood within their little jurisdiction. And it is up to them, in the end, to make informed moral choices based on their unique situation.

The fault of Humanae vitae was two-fold: first, it did not make the sanctity of sex within marriage, and the necessity of expressing sexual love only within marriage the centerpiece of its message; second, in regard to contraception, it placed too much emphasis on means and not on intentions. And, of course, like almost all magisterial documents emanating from the Vatican, it simply takes for granted the Latin Church's understanding of the "purposes" of marriage for granted. That the Eastern Churches might not see marriage as having any earthly purpose at all, but as being nothing more nor less than a sacramental typos of Christ's relationship to the Church, apparently never entered its mind.

Well said, Stuart.

Stuart,

I see no problem with your interpretation. I may have used a misleading term here and there. It's just that some posters seem quite willing to simply ignore our Patriarch entirely which seems odd since we are Catholic.

CDL