Orthodox accept artificial contraception?

[Marybeloved]

Economy has the equivalent in what Roman Catholics would call a dispensation.

The main difference here (I think) is that most dispensations are reserved to the Pope, while Economy is practiced by all bishops within the context of their synods.

False. Bishops certainly do grant dispensations, especially with regards to the things we are talking about- marriage requirements and all that.

The real difference rather is that with the Catholic Church, exercise of dispensations is restricted to matters of ecclesiastical law and doesn’t interfere with the divine law.

 

[Hesychios]

False. Bishops do exercise dispensation, especially with regards to the things we are talking about- marriage requirements and all that.

The real difference rather is that with the Catholic Church, exercise of dispensations is restricted to matters of ecclesiastical law and doesn’t interfere with the divine law.

It seems that the Petrine Privilige and the Pauline Privilige do not agree with you.

 

[Marybeloved]

It seems that the Petrine Privilige and the Pauline Privilige do not agree with you.

Both do not dissolve a sacramental bond, so I certainly disagree with you.

 

[L_piperatus]

Getting back to the contraception topic, the Orthodox Church in Cyprus is indirectly responsible for an extremely high abortion rate. Abortion is not even an issue, it is so accepted in the Orthodox country; there are no Right to Life groups and abortion is not a national debate as in other countries.

What happened was that the Orthodox Church gave their support for premarital screening and genetic counselling (which includes information on prenatal testing and abortion) in an attempt to prevent people being born with thalassaemia. However, most couples married anyway, but used abortion as a way of eliminating the disease in their family, and of course once people are convinced that abortion is acceptable to prevent thalassaemia, it quickly becomes acceptable to prevent any incovenience. It was the old slippery slope…

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927788/

“Once prenatal diagnosis became possible for thalassemia, it was made available within the Cypriot health service. Soon after, confidential premarital screening was made mandatory among Greek Cypriots by the Greek Orthodox Church and among Turkish Cypriots by the civil authorities. It was then found that 98% of at-risk couples detected just prior to marriage proceed to marry. Nevertheless, the annual number of new births of children with thalassaemia major has decreased almost to zero in Cyprus, because couples use the information on genetic risk in a variety of ways to obtain a healthy family. Less than 5% of the decrease in thalassaemia major births is due to separation of engaged couples.”

Wow…

So, this premarital screening can determine that when both the groom and the bride carry the (recessive) gene for thalassemia, there is a 25% chance that their child will carry two copies of the gene and have thalassemia major disease (also, 50% chance for healthy children with one copy of the gene, and 25% chance for unaffected healthy children who no longer carry a copy of the bad gene). Then, if the baby in utero is diagnosed with thalassemia major disease, they just abort the baby… That’s what they do, if I understand it correctly.

If the Eastern Orthodox Church of Cyprus approves of this process, that’s really bad. Premarital genetic screening and counseling can only have 3 goals: 1. let the couple know that they can expect sick children; 2. suggest that the bride and groom split and never marry each other; 3. suggest that the couple follow up with screening their babies in utero, and abort them if diagnosed with thalassemia major. This third goal is clearly immoral, and I would expect the EOC of Cyprus to forcefully speak out against it. I wonder, since premarital genetic screening and counseling were made compulsory, what’s next? Compulsory abortion of pregnancies where the baby has thalassemia major?

Also I understand that once abortion becomes “acceptable” for thalassemia, it quickly becomes “acceptable” for other reasons as well.

I did a little reading and I understand thalassemia is a Mediterranean problem affecting, among others, parts of Catholic Italy. I wonder how does the Catholic Church deal with it.

 

[Elijahmaria]

I am not mistaken, I said the same thing you did.

The church gives a declaration of nullity, admitting that in spite of vows before the altar the church certified an invalid ceremony, not a marriage.

Sadly, there are apparently millions of Roman Catholics out there that do not have valid marriages, and they will never know for sure unless their ‘spouse’ abandons or betrays them. For some people, lucky in having a faithful partner to live with, they may never know their marriage isn’t real and they may die while still cohabiting with a person they didn’t marry.

Not true. The marriage is validated by the very fact of their remaining together. If the marriage was not valid by intent in the first place…It will be valid by grace by the time the couple dies and moves on into life everlasting. This has always been a false argument against annulments. May sound very clever but nobody ever thinks it through by grace.

It is like telling a sinner that they can never be holy because they refused to be holy in the first place.

 

[Elijahmaria]

Economy has the equivalent in what Roman Catholics would call a dispensation.

The main difference here (I think) is that most dispensations are reserved to the Pope, while Economy is practiced by all bishops within the context of their synods.

Where do you get these ideas? Is it easier to presume than to ask?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I do not see how this is anything but a mitigation of sin guilt…or permission to sin.

If one’s spouse refuses not to use contraception, the only other option is to refuse relations indefinitely, which is also wrong.

Material cooperation with evil is not objectively immoral and can, if the circumstances are right, be justified.

If you keep saying this is “permission to sin,” that’s as bad as some Latin Catholics’ insistence that Orthodox economia is permission to sin. Succumbing to straw men distortions and caricatures is not the way to be better than such polemics.

Besides, do you really think that what that document advises could not also be advised in the Orthodox Church? After all, even without that desperate situation, economy is occasionally leveled to permit married couples to contracept. So you have two options:

(a) The Orthodox Church is at least as guilty of this as the Catholic Church
or
(b) Neither is guilty of it.

I know which option reason and Christian charity direct *me *toward.

The main difference here (I think) is that most dispensations are reserved to the Pope, while Economy is practiced by all bishops within the context of their synods.

There are plenty of dispensations that Catholic bishops have the authority to give, including marriage matters (dispensation from proper form, etc.). Other examples would be the abstinence laws of the Church.

It seems that the Petrine Privilige and the Pauline Privilige do not agree with you.

Neither dissolves a Sacramental marriage.

 

[manualman]

Economy has the equivalent in what Roman Catholics would call a dispensation.

The main difference here (I think) is that most dispensations are reserved to the Pope, while Economy is practiced by all bishops within the context of their synods.

So it is NOT simply a form of pastoral/moral triage and IS more of a permission? I’m not trolling, I really do want to see if there is a rational compatibility here.

Dispensations are typically given for things that are part of the disciplinary law in the catholic church. A married Anglican convert may be given a dispensation and allowed to be ordained a priest, a catholic may be allowed to marry a non-catholic (usually with some conditions), an aspiring wilderness explorer may be dispensed from the Sunday Mass obligation (hate that way of describing mass!).

I’m not aware of any circumstances where a catholic bishop can grant permission to a person to commit an action defined as intrinsically immoral. Are you?

Thanks for the ongoing clarification, sorry if I’m missing it via my thick head.

 

[Marybeloved]

It has always seemed to me that Jesus is quite CRITICAL of Moses’ decision to allow divorce and the hardness of heart of the people that prompted it. If you are right, it would seem that oikonomia does not in any way reduce the sinfulness of the act committed, but merely is a sort of moral triage approach to presenting the gospel to sinners (which, lets face it is all of us). But I’m still concerned that I might be barking up the wrong tree here. Do EO folks see oikonomia as something westerners might call moral relativism or is it more like the triage perspective described above?

Yes, my thoughts on that are merely conjecture and speculation trying to understand the reasoning for the Orthodox- I placed a caveat that it could be totally false- I stand by the caveat.

 

[Marybeloved]

If one’s spouse refuses not to use contraception, the only other option is to refuse relations indefinitely, which is also wrong.

Material cooperation with evil is not objectively immoral and can, if the circumstances are right, be justified.

If you keep saying this is “permission to sin,” that’s as bad as some Latin Catholics’ insistence that Orthodox economia is permission to sin. Succumbing to straw men distortions and caricatures is not the way to be better than such polemics.

Besides, do you really think that what that document advises could not also be advised in the Orthodox Church? After all, even without that desperate situation, economy is occasionally leveled to permit married couples to contracept. So you have two options:

(a) The Orthodox Church is at least as guilty of this as the Catholic Church
or
(b) Neither is guilty of it.

I know which option reason and Christian charity direct *me *toward.

Appreciating your attempt at a balanced approach here, I have to disagree with your placing the Catholic guidelines for marital relations with a contracepting spouse on the same scale as the orthodox practice of permitting their members actual use of ABCs for the reasons that Catholics are permitted to use NFP.

I want unity among the churches very badly, but there’s simply no parallel in the Catholic Church (at-least not officially/legitimately) for this modern Orthodox practice at all :nope:.

 

[Elijahmaria]

If you keep saying this is “permission to sin,” that’s as bad as some Latin Catholics’ insistence that Orthodox economia is permission to sin.

That is precisely what I was responding to…Some clever Roman rite participant here who mocked the Orthodox and called their permission to divorce a permission to sin.

Thanks for catching on to the irony in my comments and not lecturing me…

 

[Elijahmaria]

Appreciating your attempt at a balanced approach here, I have to disagree with your placing the Catholic guidelines for marital relations with a contracepting spouse on the same scale as the orthodox practice of permitting their members actual use of ABCs for the reasons that Catholics are permitted to use NFP.

I want unity among the churches very badly, but there’s simply no parallel in the Catholic Church (at-least not officially/legitimately) for this modern Orthodox practice at all :nope:.

Having some degree of pastoral experience in the Catholic Church, I beg to respectfully disagree with you. There are many ways in which, for pastoral reasons, Catholic shepherds do precisely what appears to be ‘give permission to sin’.

Now you may have a point in principle…that I have never denied…but not in practice.

M.

 

[dcointin]

The simple fact is, contraception was condemned by the early Church. Orthodox who accept the use of contraception must admit that they are acting out of touch with the Early Church. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America even admits that the current permissive views regarding contraception are out of step with what the early Christians believed: goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101 Do a control-F search for “contraception” to see what I mean. The Church Fathers attest to this as well; I can supply quotes if necessary.

That being said, I’ve gotten the impression that the Orthodox are more apprehensive on contraception than the Protestants. The Orthodox priest whom I dialogued with for a while was staunchly against it, and some of the Orthodox writings I’ve read on the subject mention that there is disagreement on the issue amongst theologians.

I would hope that all Orthodox reject the hormonal forms of birth control (ie: the pill, depo-provera, etc.) since these forms have to potential to prevent a newly-conceived embryo from implanting (that’s called an abortion…)

As for the Eastern Catholic Churches, in terms of official teaching, they are in union with Rome, not just canonically, but in terms of moral theology as well. In other words, they are against it. If they were for contraception, I don’t think they’d be in union with Rome. However, given the widespread acceptance of contraception that exists amongst laity (and even some clergy) in the Roman Rite, I would not be surprised if such views have become common in the Eastern Catholic Churches as well. Either way, their teachings are the same as that of the Roman Church, as they would be on any other moral issue.

I would be very interested in hearing patristic writings on this matter.

God bless,

Don

 

[Marybeloved]

That is precisely what I was responding to…Some clever Roman rite participant here who mocked the Orthodox and called their permission to divorce a permission to sin.

Thanks for catching on to the irony in my comments and not lecturing me…

Again, the example given cannot make the point intended- its simply comparing apples and oranges.

Having some degree of pastoral experience in the Catholic Church, I beg to respectfully disagree with you. There are many ways in which, for pastoral reasons, Catholic shepherds do precisely what appears to be ‘give permission to sin’.

Now you may have a point in principle…that I have never denied…but not in practice.

M.

No Bishop (even if he be the Bishop of Rome) has the right to go against the Catholic magisterial teaching on this or any other matter. What you describe would fall under the category of abuse, no different than the abuse going on with annulments in Western English-speaking countries that has even caught the eye of the Pope and he has complained to the CC equivalent of the World Supreme Court in marriages that is based in Rome. It certainly cannot be used to support the point intended.

No pope or his brother-Bishops can bend the Divine Law for anyone, or excuse anyone from it- That’s really the argument being made that has been couched in the phrase “permission to sin”. Eve when concessions are given/allowed, they are done so always not to interfere with the Divine Law itself- in other words, the concessions are present in the particular circumstances themselves and the Bishops provide the best guidance of navigating them without sinning against the Divine will (Law)- That’s the work of all Bishops everywhere, and the point of their power and authority vis-a-vis the faithful: To guide the faithful on how best to obey the will/law of God in all types of circumstances, difficult, new and perplexing.

What is meant to be expressed by the objections given here is that the Divine Law remains true regardless of what Bishops purport to do/permit, and if what they permit is contrary to the unchanging Law of God, then in a sense some could see it as permitting sin- because to them, it remains sin per Divine Law regardless of what a Bishop says. Obviously the true reasoning is not so simple (That is: let us permit sin because it’s easier…etc). But the more basic argument is: What are the Bishops’ powers/authority in the church with regards to the obligations of the Divine Law and the universal natural Law? Obviously for the Catholic Church, the authority of the Bishops remains always perfectly subordinate to the Divine Law and does not ever contradict it.

 

[GraceSofia]

Wow…

So, this premarital screening can determine that when both the groom and the bride carry the (recessive) gene for thalassemia, there is a 25% chance that their child will carry two copies of the gene and have thalassemia major disease (also, 50% chance for healthy children with one copy of the gene, and 25% chance for unaffected healthy children who no longer carry a copy of the bad gene). Then, if the baby in utero is diagnosed with thalassemia major disease, they just abort the baby… That’s what they do, if I understand it correctly.

Yes, that is what they do.

If the Eastern Orthodox Church of Cyprus approves of this process, that’s really bad. Premarital genetic screening and counseling can only have 3 goals: 1. let the couple know that they can expect sick children; 2. suggest that the bride and groom split and never marry each other; 3. suggest that the couple follow up with screening their babies in utero, and abort them if diagnosed with thalassemia major. This third goal is clearly immoral, and I would expect the EOC of Cyprus to forcefully speak out against it. I wonder, since premarital genetic screening and counseling were made compulsory, what’s next? Compulsory abortion of pregnancies where the baby has thalassemia major?

Abortion is voluntary and does not have to made compulsory because of the belief that preventing suffering makes it okay. “In the Republic of Cyprus, the mandating agency for genetic screening is the established church, so this examination also demonstrates that religious authorities with profound objections to abortion can balance that moral precept against others, such as the imperative to reduce suffering that sometimes conflict with it.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19170092

Also I understand that once abortion becomes “acceptable” for thalassemia, it quickly becomes “acceptable” for other reasons as well.

I did a little reading and I understand thalassemia is a Mediterranean problem affecting, among others, parts of Catholic Italy. I wonder how does the Catholic Church deal with it.

Interesting question. I am not Italian, so no expert. I would guess that premarital screening is practiced, but that even if individuals do prenatal screening, it is in spite of and not because of the Catholic Church. Also Malta probably has a high incidence of it, but a quick interntet search did not give me anything much…

According to the USCCB: "50. Prenatal diagnosis is permitted when the procedure does not threaten the life or physical integrity of the unborn child or the mother and does not subject them to disproportionate risks; when the diagnosis can provide information to guide preventative care for the mother or pre- or postnatal care for the child; and when the parents, or at least the mother, give free and informed consent. Prenatal diagnosis is not permitted when undertaken with the intention of aborting an unborn child with a serious defect ."
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services

 

[Elijahmaria]

Again, the example given cannot make the point intended- its simply comparing apples and oranges.

No Bishop (even if he be the Bishop of Rome) has the right to go against the Catholic magisterial teaching on this or any other matter. What you describe would fall under the category of abuse, no different than the abuse going on with annulments in Western English-speaking countries that has even caught the eye of the Pope and he has complained to the CC equivalent of the World Supreme Court in marriages that is based in Rome. It certainly cannot be used to support the point intended.

No pope or his brother-Bishops can bend the Divine Law for anyone, or excuse anyone from it- That’s really the argument being made that has been couched in the phrase “permission to sin”. Eve when concessions are given/allowed, they are done so always not to interfere with the Divine Law itself- in other words, the concessions are present in the particular circumstances themselves and the Bishops provide the best guidance of navigating them without sinning against the Divine will (Law)- That’s the work of all Bishops everywhere, and the point of their power and authority vis-a-vis the faithful: To guide the faithful on how best to obey the will/law of God in all types of circumstances, difficult, new and perplexing.

What is meant to be expressed by the objections given here is that the Divine Law remains true regardless of what Bishops purport to do/permit, and if what they permit is contrary to the unchanging Law of God, then in a sense some could see it as permitting sin- because to them, it remains sin per Divine Law regardless of what a Bishop says. Obviously the true reasoning is not so simple (That is: let us permit sin because it’s easier…etc). But the more basic argument is: What are the Bishops’ powers/authority in the church with regards to the obligations of the Divine Law and the universal natural Law? Obviously for the Catholic Church, the authority of the Bishops remains always perfectly subordinate to the Divine Law and does not ever contradict it.

I think you missed the memo on binding and loosing!!

M.

PS: I believe that “Whatsoever” is the operative word:

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[Elijahmaria]

.

No pope or his brother-Bishops can bend the Divine Law for anyone, or excuse anyone from it- That’s really the argument being made that has been couched in the phrase “permission to sin”. Eve when concessions are given/allowed, they are done so always not to interfere with the Divine Law itself- in other words, the concessions are present in the particular circumstances themselves and the Bishops provide the best guidance of navigating them without sinning against the Divine will (Law)- That’s the work of all Bishops everywhere, and the point of their power and authority vis-a-vis the faithful: To guide the faithful on how best to obey the will/law of God in all types of circumstances, difficult, new and perplexing.

A concession by definition is a mitigation of the law itself…It does not change the law. It changes how we live the law and how we suffer guilt for transgressions of the law. It is this latter which is bound and loosed.

Simply because you are allowed to participate in the contraceptive attitudes and behaviors of your spouse to keep some other unlawful thing from happening, does not mean that the law itself has not been mitigated to suit the circumstances.

M.

 

[dcointin]

Still waiting on any patristic quotations!

 

[Marybeloved]

I think you missed the memo on binding and loosing!!

M.

PS: I believe that “Whatsoever” is the operative word:

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Actually,I’m sure you missed the memo on binding and loosing

*CCC *
1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. *Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God. *



And what are you implying? You think your Bishop can permit you to kill your unborn baby because Jesus said “whatever” in that sentence? Context, my friend. It’s everything when it comes to interpreting scripture or church teaching.

 

[Marybeloved]

A concession by definition is a mitigation of the law itself…It does not change the law. It changes how we live the law and how we suffer guilt for transgressions of the law. It is this latter which is bound and loosed.

And we are saying that the church cannot offer such concessions from obeying the Divine Law. The most the church can do is mitigate the punishment of a repentant sinner- Not permit the actual engaging in the sin from the beginning.

Simply because you are allowed to participate in the contraceptive attitudes and behaviors of your spouse to keep some other unlawful thing from happening, does not mean that the law itself has not been mitigated to suit the circumstances.

We are not allowed to participate in the contraceptives attitudes and behaviors of our partners- I have no idea how you could conclude such a thing. We are required to oppose contraception and tell them about it- How is that participating in the contraceptives attitudes? We are told to be sure we are not doing anything illicit ourselves. No matter how much we try to stretch and twist this thing, it simply cannot parallel the Orthodox bishop saying that contraceptives can be used to control births for 1, 2, 3 reasons. And try as you may, you will not find such a thing in the CC teaching.