www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Birth Control

I respect Archbishop Raya greatly but I would ask, "Who has greater stature with regard to the moral teaching of the Church within the Melkite Greek Catholic Church-- Archbishop Raya or the Pope?"

If it's not the Pope why are we Greek Catholic?

Frank

Dear Frank,

I take it some pressing business made Stuart cut short his response to you, what with all this talk of sex and conceiving . . .

But surely, Catholic Bishops' Conferences around the world have issued their own interpretations of Pope Paul VI's encyclical and while the argument can certainly be made that the Pope's teachings override them, there is not, nor ever has been, a consistent approach to this issue from all quarters of the Roman Catholic Church itself.

The Eastern Churches not only have their own Particular theological traditions pertaining to faith, but also to moral theology as well, based, as they are, on the teachings of the Fathers etc.

The Fathers of the Eastern Church, although trained in pre-Christian Greek philosophy, tended not to use it in developing their Christian theology.

The West is different in this respect and the "natural law" used in Humanae Vitae reflects this, as it is taken directly from the pre-Christian tradition.

Right away, this spells out a big difference in approach between East and West and this is what Kyr Joseph Raya has so eminently captured in his writings.

Finally, I return to my earlier comment that whatever traditional RC teachers and Popes have to say about artificial birth control is largely ignore by the majority of RC faithful.

It is simply not relevant to them at all. And no organization can go for long without having such a gap between stated objectives or teaching and the realities of actual practice of its members without some major change coming about.

So I really don't see what the deal is with trying to determine whether Byzantine Catholics follow Humanae Vitae when the majority of RC's never have.

The Orthodox Churches are more in tune with their faithful and have developed a teaching on this perspective which is, in my view, sensitive to the realities of contemporary life and to Patristic principles (minus the emphasis on the pagan notion of "natural law").

His Holiness the Pope has tended not to make this an overriding emphasis in his Pontificate, to his great credit.

Alex

Dear Stuart,

I am well rebuked, Mentor!

There is just no substitute for hard work! When I was told I had to "lie down" on the job, I thought I could just lie down . . .

And congratulations on your horizontal achievements!

Alex

To continue the discussion:

What changed that caused 1900 years of Christian tradition against artificial contraception to be suddenly acceptable?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Dave,

I found the previous discussion more fun . . .

You've researched the 1900 year tradition against artificial birth control, have you?

You mean the Romans were against condoms and diaphrams?

Well, I suppose when in Rome . . .

Did you also know that, at one point, the Catholic Church only considered a foetus "with a soul" after 40 days of its conception?

Change itself is not something the Church is against, unless it violates the integrity of the Teaching of Christ.

There is nothing preventing a future Pope from altering aspects of Humanae Vitae.

Is there?

Alex

Hi Jenny and Everybody:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I like the wording of your question!

Speaking for myself, I agree with the teaching - not just because I "have" to, and certainly not because I think it is an easy teaching, but because it is morally correct.

On a very basic level, I figure that the Church does me little good - sinner that I am - if it doesn't provide me with the necessary moral guidance to avoid the occasion of sin.

Annie

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Annie_SFO:

>>>On a very basic level, I figure that the Church does me little good - sinner that I am - if it doesn't provide me with the necessary moral guidance to avoid the occasion of sin.<<<

Nobody doubts that the Church has the right, indeed, the obligation to offer moral guidance. The real issue is how that moral guidance is given, and whether it is enforced through juridical methods. The Latin Church, with its emphasis on the Church as the perfect society, tends to view matters in a legalistic way, and attempts to enforce its moral decrees through a variety of juridical sanctions.

The Eastern Churches, on the other hand, try to avoid such legalism as incompatible with the concept of salvation through grace, and so make absolute rules in as few instances as possible. As the Eastern Churches tend to view salvation in terms of theosis, great emphasis is placed on growing in holiness, while at the same time recognizing the sinfulness of man and the uneven pace at which each person moves forward. Thus, with very few exceptions, the Eastern Churches try not to impose solutions on its members, but rather to hold up to them an ideal of Christian life to which they should aspire, realizing all the while that few if any can truly achieve the ideal. And that's fine, because the medicinal understanding of sin, and the therapeutic approach to repentence, do not impose the same notions of incurring a penalty that must be expiated, as is often found in Western models.

In both cases, that of the Eastern Church and the Western Church, the understanding of the purpose of sex and marriage is pretty much the same, but the way in which each Tradition attempts to live this model is somewhat different. And that is as it should be.

Correction to statements made earlier in this thread:

I received this today from the OCA Communications Office in response to an inquiry I had made. Some might feel this is "legalism" but I welcome this news (and it shows quite clearly that Orthodoxy can intrude into the bedroom just as much as Catholicism can!):


I asked a follow-up question and received this further comment:


I apologize for the misstatement I made earlier in this thread. I do still stand by my earlier comment re: the irony of the Pill being the catalyst for modern Orthodoxy's rejection of the traditional teaching on contraception.

I wonder how many Orthodox fully understand this stand of the OCA on this matter, however (or agree with it).

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-10-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Alex,

I understand that the Eastern Churches don�t make use of natural law in their moral theology. Personally, I think a natural law perspective can be useful in discerning the morality of and act, especially one not addressed by Scripture or the Fathers. However I think many people in the west including, the present Pope have seen that the natural law argument is inadequate to explain the immorality of contraception to the modern world. To this end Pope John Paul has rooted his explanation of the matter in a personalistic and Biblical argument. In the statement from Archbishop Raya quoted earlier in the thread he says, �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.�

The present pope has reaffirmed the traditional teaching on contraception and his life�s work the �theology of the body� provides the framework for a new understanding of the traditional teaching. Rather than making a natural law argument against contraception, Pope John Paul says (along with Vatican II) that man only finds himself by making a sincere and total gift of himself. In this the model is Our Lord Jesus who emptied himself completely for the life of the world and we can only give ourselves in this way in union with Him. This call to self-emptying love pertains to every aspect of our lives and has a particular meaning in the context of the nuptial love of spouses. In the nuptial relationship man and woman are called to give themselves completely to each other in love, holding nothing back. Specifically in the act of sexual intercourse, the distinctive act of union and self giving in married life, they are called to be an icon of the Trinitarian love which pours itself out without reservation (Father Lev Gillet�s God of limitless love comes to mind). The gift the spouses make to each other includes the will to give every aspect of their being, including their fertility, to each other. In this way they find themselves and find God in their married love. The gift of fertility is so integral to this self-giving that for the couple to withhold it from each other makes the gift incomplete. It makes their nuptial act of love one which is not a total gift of self, not �love without limit� but love which reserves part of itself, love which does impose limits rather than giving its self completely. The couple�s act of love becomes in a sense inauthentic and they remain in a real sense �alone� as Adam was before he was given a spouse. Contraception is wrong because �It is not good for the man to be alone,� and spouses cannot help but be alone when in that special act of union they refuse to give themselves completely to each other in love. Contraception violates the �nuptial meaning of the body� which is total self gift.

It is not immoral for spouses, for just reason, to space the birth of children as long as they don�t violate this nuptial meaning of the body. Therefore they may use natural family planning, which accomplishes the same end as contraception (avoidance of pregnancy) but uses moral means. Whereas a couple who contracept withhold the gift of fertility from each other, the spouses who use NFP and who have intercourse during the woman�s infertile time hold nothing back themselves. God withholds the gift of fertility (as is His prerogative) while the spouses withhold nothing. When they abstain from intercourse during the woman�s fertile time, rather than refuse to honor the act of total self-giving which intercourse is they choose not to express their love in the particular act of sexual intercourse at that time, as is their prerogative.

For information on Pope John Paul�s Theology of the Body you can check out

http://www.theologyofthebody.net/articles.htm


BTW the techniques used in NFP can also be used to help couples that have difficulty conceiving. You can do a search for NFP on the web.

Frank

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frank:
[QB]

>>>In this way they find themselves and find God in their married love. The gift of fertility is so integral to this self-giving that for the couple to withhold it from each other makes the gift incomplete.<<<

An interesting perspective that begs some questions:

1. Can people who are naturally infertile enter into a "valid" marriage under this theology; e.g., if the man has lost his testicles, or if the woman has had an hysterectomy?

2. Can a woman past the age of menopause enter into a "valid" marriage, since she is not fertile?

3. Is the validity of marriage therefore inextricably linked to fertility and procreation? or is marriage principally a sacrament of union in which the bearing of children is a fruit of the union, not its primary, or secondary rationale?

Again, look to the words of Kyr Joseph on this matter, and compare them. Apparently in this East and West have some very different perspectives.

Stuart,

You quoted:


>>>In this way they find themselves and find God in their married love. The gift of fertility is so integral to this self-giving that for the couple to withhold it from each other makes the gift incomplete.<<<

with an emphasis on the word couple. An equally important word to highlight is withhold.

With this in mind, the answers to your hypothetical questions 1 and 2 are "Yes" since neither party is guilty of withholding anything.

In Christ,
Steven

Dear Steven,

My Godson's mother is, I believe, in sync with you.

She recently told me that the way she gets her husband Ian to behave is by "Witholding" sex.

Alex

Steven is correct. Spouses are called to give themselves completely to each other. They are asked to withhold nothing. The average married couple is fertile and so they are called to include their fertility in the gift of themselves. If a couple is infertile (because of menopause, injury to their reproductive organs etc.) they are still called to give themselves completely and withhold nothing. They have no fertility to give because of their circumstances so they are not withholding anything. The key concept is that the spouses make a total gift of self and withhold nothing from each other. If they happen to be infertile they can�t withhold their fertility; it�s just something that isn�t there.

Frank

Hello Forum members. I'm a new member and wanted to chime in on this topic.

I don't agree with Alex's interpretation of the situation as a bunch of celibates trying to force the laos faithful to observe something which they don't believe (i.e. that contraception is immoral). If you go by this, it has also been found that the majority of Catholics in this country don't believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, either. Perhaps we should throw this belief out the window along with the rejection of contraception?

In reality, many faithful (like myself) oppose the use of contraception. They do this because they believe this to be the truth, not because they were forced to believe it. They see the Church leaders who uphold this teaching as heroic defenders of Christian morality, in the face of the moral collapse of so many others. These leaders echo the teachings of the Fathers to reject the pagan indulgence of "Onanism" as well as the many other sexual immoralities that are in vogue today. And no matter how hard you all try, you can't make this a matter of "legalism." I'm sorry, but upholding an ancient moral belief doesn't qualify as "legalism." This is, rather, courage in the face of weakness. Courage to uphold Christian morality.

All this talk about the difference between East and West when it comes to Christian morality, I believe for the most part is hogwash. IMO this idea is the fabrication of modern Orthodox writers trying to justify their moral weakness on controversial issues. If you look at the teachings of many Eastern Fathers, Patriarchs, and Church leaders you will see identical condemnations of many moral perversions the West condemns, INCLUDING CONTRACEPTION. Not only this, the application of Natural Law is by no means an exclusively "Western" or "Latin" concept or tradition. The East has traditionally employed it too.

For myself, it is primarily clear Patristic evidence (Eastern and Western) which compelled me to reject the contraceptive act. It remains to be seen how Orthodox and Catholic Christians who accept Contraception can so easily brush aside such a strong and clear Patristical witness.

Based on this, I put together the treatise mentioned above by "Dave Ignatius." Its there for anyone who might be interested in taking a second look at this topic. I believe it represents the authentic Eastern Tradition.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]