Posted on 11/29/2010 4:43:30 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
If there is no reason why we can't re-shape sex and make it functioanlly a different thing in order to suit our preferences --- and this is exactly what contraception does --- then there is no coherent reason to oppose homosexual unions, or any other kind of union which serves our conception of "the way we want it."
The underlying idea is, "We can change this act in any way we want, because it has no inherent structure of its own."
Yet this is no little fussy, prissy, scrupulous thing. This is something huge, something that will destroy --- has destroyed, is destroying --- souls, marriages, families, nations, and civilizations. It's happening as we speak, and people are sleep-walking through it like they're drugged.
You guys are being disingenuous in implying otherwise.
“If all of Orthodoxy, all of Protestantism, and 90% of rank and file Catholics reject a principle of moral theology that has been universally and continuously taught since the time of the Apostles, does that not cause you any concern?”
Not at all. I trust the Holy Spirit and the Laos tou Theou.
“With the notable exception of a faithful remnant.”
That’s just a little bit Gnostic, isn’t it Doc?
I agree wholeheartedly, and I believe history will see just how overarching this subject was in retrospect.
I think more far Catholics are willing to stick their neck out today to address this issue than even nine years ago when I first started posting here. There are signs of hope in this regard, and even many hard core anti-Catholics now accept that the Church was and is correct on this topic.
Right. That's what they told us (in so many words) about VII.
Good luck with that.
“That was Saint Augustine’s explanation of Genesis 38, which was held throughout Christianity up till the Anglicans caved in 1930, followed within decades by the rest of Protestantism and finally the Orthodox.”
As you doubtless know, Blessed Augustine is not highly regarded in the East. Indeed, we feel his writings are far outside the Consensus Patrum and that he is responsible for many of the innovative doctrines Rome has come up with and which lead to the Great Schism. Some even maintain that he was a heretic. Quoting him to an Orthodox Christian will not advance your argument.
“I have yet to see a valid reason for Orthodoxy’s “new consensus” on this issue, given their historical universal condemnation of contraception in union with Saint Augustine’s views of scripture, i.e. Genesis 38.”
I can assure you that virtually nothing we do or did is or was in union with anything Blessed Augustine said or taught.
In a way, I am not that surprised. One of the major problems (for me as an outside observer) is that while the Catholic church claims to have certain dogmatic things in regards to birth control nailed down, the laity and priests often don't follow it. So much that when I mentioned to my brother in law that NFP is only valid in grave instances, both he and his bride to be argued with me. NFP is being taught from teenage years to pre Cana classes, in a way that is more like “this is Catholic approved birth control!”
My BIL is shocked that isn't the case. Reading what Doc Brian and others have written on the subject, NFP can be used with the same intent as say using a condom. In fact, that is probably the majority of how it is used in the West. It is a small step from saying “NFP” to a barrier method.
I will try to write more later but now must give my daughter a bath.
“It’s not without precedent. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints” (Links)]”
Oh, please. What nonsense! Shall I post the Pope Joan stories and the rubrics for the ordination of women to the Roman Catholic priesthood. You can do better than that. If you can’t, I can’t take you seriously.
“I’m beginning to wonder...Athanasius Contra Mundum?”
Your point? Is it that arrogant clerical Western jurisdiction hopping converts will win the day? I don’t doubt that Rome hopes so. The Adhan will be heard in Vatican City before that happens.
Orthodox Wiki?????????????????????????????????
Wow, I’m impressed!
“Right. That’s what they told us (in so many words) about VII.
Good luck with that.”
Right. Here’s the difference, Doc. The promise was that the HS wouldn’t desert The Church. It hasn’t.
“You know, that’s one of those things that I figured that everyone knew.”
We all know that, but Westerners think everyone is just like them....Surprise! :)
However, I did not introduce this repellent tid-bit in order to suggest that it established some kind of legitimate precedent. Far from it. My point (perhaps poorly expressed) was that if you accept the premise of altered, contracepted sex --- if sex is really just about a couple expressing their love --- then there's no inherent reason why the couple has to be a man and a woman. A man and a man could plausible assert that they, too, are a couple that want to express their love, and that the nature of "the act" itself doesn't really matter.
A community that can accept sex deliberately turned away from procretion, can accept any kind of couple-icious jiggery-pokery. Why not? It's a bodily way to express couplishness, with its procreative nature deliberately repudiated.
Contracepted sex provides the ideological and spiritual framework for gay sex.
I'm not just predicting that. I'm seeing it. I'm reporting it.
It's happening. You watch.
I'm afraid I'm not following you here. (Really. It's late. I'm thud-headed.) Are you referring to Athanasius as an "arrogant clerical Western jurisdiction hopping convert"?
My point, though, remains. Find one Patristic source, one Orthodox bishop, one Orthodox saint, who practiced contraceptive acts or approved them. You'll find the same number --- zero --- as the number who approved homosexual acts.
This thread has been deeply disturbing and disappointing to me. Its been a revelation. My esteem for Orthodoxy has been gutted as a result of the sophistries, disingenuous responses and outright evasions of basic, well meaning points of debate in this thread.
I just didn't know it had devolved this far in the Orthodox realm regarding moral theology and justification for that which simply cannot be justified from Scripture or Tradition..
Clear to me and I agree.
“I just didn’t know it had devolved this far in the Orthodox realm regarding moral theology and justification for that which simply cannot be justified from Scripture or Tradition..”
Here’s the problem, Doc. You have no idea what the Eastern tradition on bioethics is or has been. You are a product of a church whose theology is thoroughly Augustinian and Thomist. Ours isn’t. You theology, from where we sit, is legalistic. Ours is theraputic. We view the Church as a hospital for sick souls and Christ as the “Physician of our Souls and Bodies”. There are reasons, apparently acceptable, for a spiritual father to allow his spiritual children, within marriage, to use certain types of contraception because he feels it better spiritually for them to use birth control than not, because it is a role of a spiritual father to, as we pray in the Divine Liturgy of +Basil the Great, to maintain “the marriage bond in peace and concord.” It’s that simple. Now, a number of Orthodox theologians have written recently on this question, usually in the context of a bioethical discussion. Here’s snip from what Fr. Stanley Harakas has written:
“Fertility control, or contraception, is the practice by which mechanical, chemical, or other means are used, either before or after a sexual act, in order to prevent fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, thus circumventing the possible consequences of the sexual act - the conception and ultimate birth of a child.
General agreement exists among Orthodox writers on the following two points:
1.
since at least one of the purposes of marriage is the birth of children, a couple acts immorally when it consistently uses contraceptive methods to avoid the birth of any children, if there are not extenuating circumstances;
2.
contraception is also immoral when used to encourage the practice of fornication and adultery.
Less agreement exists among Eastern Orthodox authors on the issue of contraception within marriage for the spacing of children or for the limitation of the number of children. Some authors take a negative view and count any use of contraceptive methods within or outside of marriage as immoral (Papacostas, pp. 13-18; Gabriel Dionysiatou). These authors tend to emphasize as the primary and almost exclusive purpose of marriage the birth of children and their upbringing. They tend to consider any other exercise of the sexual function as the submission of this holy act to unworthy purposes, i.e., pleasure-seeking, passion, and bodily gratification, which are held to be inappropriate for the Christian growing in spiritual perfection. These teachers hold that the only alternative is sexual abstinence in marriage, which, though difficult, is both desirable and possible through the aid of the grace of God. It must be noted also that, for these writers, abortion and contraception are closely tied together, and often little or no distinction is made between the two. Further, it is hard to discern in their writings any difference in judgment between those who use contraceptive methods so as to have no children and those who use them to space and limit the number of children.
Other Orthodox writers have challenged this view by seriously questioning the Orthodoxy of the exclusive and all-controlling role of the procreative purpose of marriage (Zaphiris; Constantelos, 1975). Some note the inconsistency of the advocacy of sexual continence in marriage with the scriptural teaching that one of the purposes of marriage is to permit the ethical fulfillment of sexual drives, so as to avoid fornication and adultery (1 Cor. 7:1-7). Most authors, however, emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage and its place within the framework of Christian anthropology, seeing the sexual relationship of husband and wife as one aspect of the mutual growth of the couple in love and unity. This approach readily adapts itself to an ethical position that would not only permit but also enjoin sexual relationships of husband and wife for their own sake as expressions of mutual love. Such a view clearly would support the use of contraceptive practices for the purpose of spacing and limiting children so as to permit greater freedom of the couple in the expression of their mutual love.” For the Health of Body and Soul: An Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics
Now, you say your “esteem” for Orthodoxy has been “gutted”. Well, as I said, it’s a good thing you never converted...likely for us too. Do tell me, though, Doc, it is fair for us, is it not, to be disgusted to the point of vomiting every time we see one of your priests handing out communion, with the full knowledge of their bishops, to active “out” homosexuals and heterosexual persons living together in sin, parading their illegitimate children and their scandal down the aisle for communion for all to see? Is it OK for the latter pair because they clearly didn’t use birth control during their illicit coupling? Is their scandal to the Faithful overcome by their shining example of fecundity? Orthodox priests, with the permission of their bishops, may apply economia in the application of the canons. This is an ancient practice. When you find the “Natural Law” justification for profanation of the Eucharist, however, let all of us know.
Thank you. This was the kind of response I had been hoping to see on this thread, an honest admission that there are strong differences of opinion among the Orthodox on this subject, and a reasonable explanation of the current Orthodox position and why it deviates from the historical Orthodox position.
A little less snark and a lot more honestly and humility goes a long way towards establishing the groundwork of TRUE ecumenism (as opposed to that evil false kind we’ve been force-fed for years since VII) between us.
I am in training to be a deacon. I will be dealing with mixed Catholic-Orthodox couples. I need to know the real reasons for these issues from the Orthodox perspective. My interest in this subject is pastoral now, not academic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.