"Open to Life" and "Intent" - NFP vs ABC

[LittleDeb]

Palamite:

To be fair though, this does not require that one take the Humanae Vitae position. Though Orthodoxy doesn’t see a substantial difference between NFP and ABC, fasting (which in our understanding always includes abstaining from sexual relations) is a big deal. If one is following the ecclessiastical calendar, Orthodox fast from animal foods (meat, seafood, dairy, etc.), alcohol, and sexual relations with one’s spouse for at least a third of the year, possibly more if one receives Holy Communion on a very regular basis (since fasting is a preparation for this as well - at least from the previous evening, at most for three days before…discipline can vary.)

I can understand not taking the position of HV. It is a good read but as I said before it is in response to the advent of the Pill so it has some “knee-jerk” speech to it. “On Christian Marriage” has more emphasis on the marriage act itself.

I am curious when did the Orthodox Church start to accept ABC as licit? Before 1930 all Christian churches were against ABC. Each one except the Catholic Church started accepting it after Lambeth. I didn’t study the Orthodox Church’s timeline while researching NFP vs. ABC. Could you fill me in or point me to some research. I mostly reference Protestant churches in my talk, but since Orthodox isn’t Protestant and is, by all means, Christian, it would be nice to know that history too.

Sorry it’s off-topic a bit, but it does seem important, especially if it is another thing keeping us from being reunited. Thanks, in advance, for any info you have.

 

[RyanL]

LittleDeb:

I am curious when did the Orthodox Church start to accept ABC as licit? Before 1930 all Christian churches were against ABC. Each one except the Catholic Church started accepting it after Lambeth. I didn’t study the Orthodox Church’s timeline while researching NFP vs. ABC. Could you fill me in or point me to some research. I mostly reference Protestant churches in my talk, but since Orthodox isn’t Protestant and is, by all means, Christian, it would be nice to know that history too.

Bishop Kallistos (Ware) writes in one of the several versions of his book The Orthodox Church, now entirely online on at least two sites:

The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father. [Emphasis mine.]

Fr John Schroedel, an Orthodox who happens to agree with the magisterium on the subject, admits:

Although the evidence presented contains certain ambiguities, a consistent picture does emerge. Diverse sources from Ireland, Italy, North Africa, Greece, Serbia, Russia, and the Syrian Orient all attest to the fact that contraceptives were condemned by the Church. Until very recently opposition to contraception was commonly recognized as the traditional position … It should be noted that it was not until 1930 that any mainstream Christian group officially endorsed the use of contraceptives. The Christian world had been universally opposed to the use of contraceptives until that time. What were the reasons cited?

*The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, “Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method,” but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, “the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles.”

By the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was an accepted part of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents “in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife.”

The Anglicans present an excellent microcosm of what happened among Protestant churches in the 1900s.* - A Protestant site

It would seem that the Lambeth Conferences would be worth researching.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[johntkd]

Ok excuse my dire stupidity on this question, what is the orthodox Church and what significance would they have in accepting ABC?

I have seen bits and pieces on other threads reffering to this other Church and about thier pastors,etc so now i am curious.

thanks

 

[Mark_Marilyn]

vluvski:

Human sacrifice and cannibalism did/do not seem gravely evil to some cultures. Hitler and his henchmen apparently did not think genocide was wrong. Absolute truth, not the conscience of society, dictate right from wrong.

If the church is supposed to base it’s teachings on the moral compass of contemporary society, perhaps it should also change its teachings on fornication, masturbation, extramarital affairs, divorce, homosexuality… [NO, not necessarily…! That does not follow.]

The fact is that society should conform itself to the truth, because truth will never, can never conform itself to the lies we trick ourselves into believing.

   I believe the above evil tyrants, etc., secretly knew they were being cruel and violent.
     In the masterpiece play, My Dinner With Andre, Wallace Shawn says to Andre: "You know, Hannah Arendt was always writing about the fact that the more involved you are in corruption or evil, the more areas of your existence there are that you don't want to think about or that you can't face or that you have to lie about... (therefore) the more distorted your perception of reality will be in general... In other words, we all have reasons to hide from reality, and it's a terrible problem."
     This in part explains why so many people cannot accept the approach: "Like all other countries in the world, we have problems. We need to face them, understand them intelligently, and do something about them. Then, hopefully, they can be solved and life will be better for everyone."
    The only "problem" some people seem to notice is "troublemakers" who keep "attacking" the status quo (business, politics, moral controversies) by reminding everyone that serious problems, mistakes, errors or injustices exist. 
So it seems, when some people seem to never see the obvious, or seem unable to do something about a straight-forward problem. There seems to be some changing of definitions or meanings in mid-discussion going on in some extreme cases, like the "Alice in Wonderland Logic" described by the caterpillar character: "When I say a word, it means what I choose it to mean; no more, no less." 
  The main point is that rationalization of one's side of moral issues is actually unhelpful, whether it is some naive "liberalism" blindly following fads around or being unduly anti-traditional, or some naive static conservatism refusing to face the world's very real problems and hiding heads in the proverbial sand. Both such sides are unwise, don't you think so?
  Any religious/moral leadership must address real problems, be relevant and resonant as well as pragmatic; otherwise, more people (incl. good & intelligent) will lose touch with it or stop seeing it as relevant/resonant.

 

[vluvski]

The Roman Catholic church is call the Latin Rite, but there are other churches said to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, often referred to as the “Eastern Rites” or the “Orthodox Catholic Church,” not to be confused with some other specific churches like the Greek Orthodox that are not in full communion.

The teaching is significant because one might wonder how we can claim to be in full communion with the church yet have differing teachings on a moral issue.

I do not know the answer to the question, you’d have to ask someone with more knowledge of the relationship among the various churches.

 

[byHisGrace]

Mark & Marilyn:

I believe the above evil tyrants, etc., secretly knew they were being cruel and violent.
In the masterpiece play, My Dinner With Andre, Wallace Shawn says to Andre: “You know, Hannah Arendt was always writing about the fact that the more involved you are in corruption or evil, the more areas of your existence there are that you don’t want to think about or that you can’t face or that you have to lie about… (therefore) the more distorted your perception of reality will be in general… In other words, we all have reasons to hide from reality, and it’s a terrible problem.”
This in part explains why so many people cannot accept the approach: “Like all other countries in the world, we have problems. We need to face them, understand them intelligently, and do something about them. Then, hopefully, they can be solved and life will be better for everyone.”
The only “problem” some people seem to notice is “troublemakers” who keep “attacking” the status quo (business, politics, moral controversies) by reminding everyone that serious problems, mistakes, errors or injustices exist.
So it seems, when some people seem to never see the obvious, or seem unable to do something about a straight-forward problem. There seems to be some changing of definitions or meanings in mid-discussion going on in some extreme cases, like the “Alice in Wonderland Logic” described by the caterpillar character: “When I say a word, it means what I choose it to mean; no more, no less.”
The main point is that rationalization of one’s side of moral issues is actually unhelpful, whether it is some naive “liberalism” blindly following fads around or being unduly anti-traditional, or some naive static conservatism refusing to face the world’s very real problems and hiding heads in the proverbial sand. Both such sides are unwise, don’t you think so?
Any religious/moral leadership must address real problems, be relevant and resonant as well as pragmatic; otherwise, more people (incl. good & intelligent) will lose touch with it or stop seeing it as relevant/resonant.

Since I as have yet seen a post from you that directly responded to the subject, would you care to (in as few words as possible) explain the revelance of this post both to the topic at hand and the previous poster’s comments?
Thanks.

 

[Mark_Marilyn]

byHisGrace:

Since I as have yet seen a post from you that directly responded to the subject, would you care to (in as few words as possible) explain the revelance of this post both to the topic at hand and the previous poster’s comments?
Thanks.

:o The response was intended for Post #100, but unfortunately cannot be interjected there. Admittedly a bit long and over-complicated, it might arguably be no worse than all the extreme over-complications that led up to #100. Perhaps we can all befog the issues with even more murky over-complications?
 Anyway, neither absolutism nor relativism really work well entirely free of problems. And we are not so sure that those who practice ABC (even a little bit once) can be equated with murderers. To assume they are equivalent, generates some absurd implications.  :confused: