From a recent AP article, Conservatives at odds with Vatican over condoms,
Germain Grisez, a prominent moral theologian who advises bishops, said that promoting condoms as protection against disease would be "pernicious" because it assumes a person does not have the capacity to make good, moral choices. He lamented that the pope's comments "can be — and are being — misused to sow doubt about Catholic teaching."
"Many of Jesus' own sayings were misused, and he no doubt foresaw that they would be misused. But he nevertheless said what he thought would lead to salvation those who were open to his teaching," Grisez wrote in an e-mail. "I assume that Pope Benedict's intention in speaking out as he does is similar to Jesus' intention. But Benedict's judgment about what to say may not be as sound as Jesus' judgment was."
Quoting from The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church:
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.
As a practical and pastoral matter, the Orthodox forbid the use of abortifacient contraceptives, and expect the decision to use non-abortifacient contraceptives to be undertaken in consultation with the married couple's spiritual father, and never for the purpose of preventing all offspring--circumstances where pregnancy would be a threat to the life of the woman possibly excepted.
Who said, "A lie can get halfway around the world while truth is still putting its boots on"? (I'm NOT saying YOU lied. The Lamestream Media did.)
The following is an inadequate analogy for what the Pope was talking about:
Suppose I were a bank robber. Suppose my M.O. were to enter a bank and wave a firearm around and threaten mayhem and slaughter if my demands were not obeyed.
Now suppose one day I decided not to put any cartridges in my magazine, because I'd decided that I really didn't want to take the risk of hurting anyone.
That would be a moral step forward for a bank robber. He's still wrong to rob banks, to 'assault' people with a firearm, loaded or not. But he IS showing some faint sign of a moral sensitivity.
To make it a better analogy, suppose that instead of injecting each person in the bank with a drug which would immobilize them, I decided I'd just tie them up, because it's safer.
It's better because tying people up is wrong, as is condom use. But my entertaining the idea of this wrong thing is motivated by a heightened awareness of the needs of others. So it is (a) a moral step forward but (b) still immoral and illicit.
Prostitution is wrong. Using condoms is wrong. But IF a male prostitute uses condoms with the intention of protecting clients - he is still intending a great many deeds which are objectively wrong. BUT he is also showing the faint flicker of an ember of conscience which MIGHT, by the grace of God, one day be fanned or blown into a fire.
IN Elliot's Murder in the Cathedral Becket turns away from what he terms "the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason."
Here our subject is doing the wrong thing not for THE right reason, but for a reason which nonetheless exhibits some moral awareness.
And if the statements I have seen are close (condoms ok in only grave circumstances) than I have wonder if no thought was given to the progression the Church of England began when it gave the OK to contraception in similar circumstances.
Ping to read later. Thank you for posting this, and for your later posts re the Lambeth conference.
I don’t believe this anymore than I believed the statement by the Pope.
It’s just the media trying to get their headlines.
Here is one of the articles in question regarding the Orthodox and birth control.