P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I’m curious when the Orthodox began allowing artificial birth control and how they justify this reversal. Does anyone know?
- Status
S
stbruno
Guest
not being Orthodox, I don’t know much, but I did find this link. Hope it helps. popline.org/docs/0606/017746.html
and this link. blog.ancient-future.net/2006/01/20/where-does-your-church-stand-on-abortion/
and this link. blog.ancient-future.net/2006/01/20/where-does-your-church-stand-on-abortion/
L
LakaYaRabb
Guest
The traditional roman Catholic understanding of birth control is equal to the term “artificial” birth control. NFP, while not artifical, is used to , under exceptional circumstances, avoid birth through natural methods. However NFP is not 100% effective, pregnancy is still possible.
In Holy Orthodoxy, the decision of the couple is only under guidance of thier priest and/or spiritual father/confessor. In some instances, those using birth control are allowed to receive Holy Communion, for the sake of oikonomia.
All that said, many Catholic couples (that I know) use NFP as a natural means to block children for selfish reasons. To most, these reasons may seem harmless.
In the Orthodox area, some jurisdictions are more strict than others.
In Holy Orthodoxy, the decision of the couple is only under guidance of thier priest and/or spiritual father/confessor. In some instances, those using birth control are allowed to receive Holy Communion, for the sake of oikonomia.
All that said, many Catholic couples (that I know) use NFP as a natural means to block children for selfish reasons. To most, these reasons may seem harmless.
In the Orthodox area, some jurisdictions are more strict than others.
A
adstrinity
Guest
What does this word mean?
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Economy. It means a relaxed reading of the canons for various reasons, sometimes for convenience and sometimes pastoral. For instance oftentimes converts who have been baptized before are received without baptism, or sometimes they are not required to make certain denunciations in public out of pastoral concern for the family of the convert.
Yours in Christ
Joe
C
chrisb
Guest
Grace and Peace Pax,
As I understand it, and please understand that I am a lowly catechuman, we must first understand how the Holy and Lifebearing Fathers understood the process of procreation.
Must understood it as the learned of Greek Culture that man carries within himself a seed (i.e. sermo) and that the woman only served as ground in which the seed grows. In fact, Greek thought on the subject didn’t recognize any role in the process of procreation by the woman except as a ‘host’ for the man’s seed (i.e. sermo).
Knowing this, the Greeks thought of the man’s sermo as the zygote and thus the complete source of a new life apart from any participation with the woman or with any egg supplies by the woman. This understanding of procreation entered into early Christian thought concerning the severity of sexual activities such as self-gratification… If the sermo is actually a zygote it would be a grave misuse of such a gift to engage in self-gratification as one would be literally careless with the gift of life (i.e. zygote) and be a very grave offense. In fact ‘all’ misuse of the sexual organs would be most grave. The problem is as we have grown in greater knowledge of the process of procreation we have learned that the sermo ‘isn’t’ a zygote and so misuse of the sexual organs, although a grave lost of control to the passion, does not carry with it as ‘grave a misuse’ of the life of life (i.e. zygote) as was perhaps thought by the Holy and LIfebearing Fathers. Understanding this, there exists room for our Bishops and Priests to exercise some economia with our use of contraception and to perhaps understand sex, outside of a procreative act as not inherently a grave misuse of sex. This returns the misuse of sex to a loss of discipline over the passions instead of placing in a special category because of it’s misuse of the ‘gifts of life’.
I hope that I expressed this well. God forgive if I have not.
N
notsmart
Guest
Hmm, what does this economy mean in greater detail?
If an Eastern Orthodox will PM me about this, I would like to know. In detail of course.
Birth control, as we use most methods today would be considered an “innovation” I presume. So do the Eastern Orthodox allow for the methods that were only known from the time of 33ad? would not any other method be innovative?
Thats the only word I see being used here, so I did. I do apologize if its offensive, but I dont know all the Christian Lingo and secret code yet.
If an Eastern Orthodox will PM me about this, I would like to know. In detail of course.
Birth control, as we use most methods today would be considered an “innovation” I presume. So do the Eastern Orthodox allow for the methods that were only known from the time of 33ad? would not any other method be innovative?
Thats the only word I see being used here, so I did. I do apologize if its offensive, but I dont know all the Christian Lingo and secret code yet.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Hmm, what does this economy mean in greater detail?
There is a long thread about Economy in the Eastern Catholic folder.
There is a long thread about Economy in the Eastern Catholic folder.
N
notsmart
Guest
Thank you! I know I have a zilllion posts that you would assume I know what a folder is, but I am on a mission. I dont know what you refer to, but I will figure it out. Thank you!
I am very interested in this, because I cant even get baptised now, nor my 5 yr old, so far. But I am waiting for the priest to call before I do anything.
I just hope I dont die, or she does. Before that happens.
J
Jordan_Francis
Guest
Have you heard of baptism of desire? If something were to happen to you before your baptism, your desire to receive it would stand in the sacrament’s stread.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
grave misuse of sex, that sounds very legalistic, very romanish. this sounds to me like the episcopalians allowing homo-sex and dismissing Holy Tradition by saying that because now we know people are born a certain way, i.e. homosexual, it’s natural for them and therefore moral. this is a misuse of science, to use it for sexual licentious.
clearly the orthodox are wrong on this serious issue.
.
C
chrisb
Guest
How would you put it? Please don’t just criticize, offer ‘correction’. I am only a catechuman.
Episcopalisans, much like modern Roman Catholics, no longer have a tradition of ascesis (spiritual discipline) which gives them a holistic understand of the passions and the misuse of our bodies and how to gain self-control. We are all wounded and so we will recognize in one another our woundedness. It’s ultimately how we use the grace given us that we create distinctions. It is my belief that Holy Orthodoxy is most therapeutic and so individuals are given what is necessary to overcome their wounded nature and walk in the light of our Lord. To take any group afflicted and assume they are something especially foul is hypocritical. Our outrage toward others sin will not hide from God our own. For those who come before God in true repentance will find in Holy Orthodoxy what is necessary to grow in grace and heal the wounded nature.
You are entitled to your opinion.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
it’s one thing to fall and pick oneself backup in repentance and humility, it’s another to condone sinful acts because everyone is doing it.
what is so pathetic about christian acceptance of contraception is that it was universally condemened by christianity until the anglicans allowed in in marriage back in the 20’s. contraception has been around forever.
the orthodox, who claim to be the true bearers of Holy Tradition, are contradicting their own faith by accepting a once universally know grave evil. it’s known that some orthodox bishops still condemn contraception. how is that?
science will help us to better discern the nature of evil in contraception but it can’t make what is evil good because moral truths don’t change.
i challenge you to identify one traditionally gravely immoral act that is now considered acceptable by the catholic church.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Luckily most modern Roman Catholics aren’t as hyper-legalistic as you seem to be. Jesus came to fulfill the law because now we know the purpose of the law. Why is artificial contraception sinful? Why is artificial contraception sinful and natural family planning isn’t? After all the purpose of both is exactly the same i.e. to avoid pregnancy. Both the supposedly sinful artificial contraception and the supposedly wholesome NFP can be sinful when they are used for selfish reasons. However there are circumstances in which not having children is the best decision such as serious financial issues, serious illness and others. Both forms of contraception can be acceptable if done for non-selfish reasons.
In all reality what’s the difference between NFP and using some form of barrier method or spermicide? (those are about the only methods allowed by the Church because most others can be an abortifacient) After all pregnancy can occur with any of those methods and in both the cases of NFP and artificial contraception if a pregnancy occurs it would be by accident. Remember Jesus came to show us the purpose of the law and the purpose of both NFP and artificial contraception is exactly the same, preventing pregnancy. So logically if one method is sinful the other is as well.
As to your question I suspect that there was a time when the Catholic Church defined anything that a couple does to intentionally avoid pregnancy as gravely sinful.
Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Cannubbi
I would say having sex only when there is little or no chance of conception is “deliberately frustrating its natural power to generate life”, wouldn’t you?
Yours in Christ
Joe
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
C
chrisb
Guest
Our separation from God is measured in degrees which we strive to close with our daily walk of faith. It is not extremes of in or out as your legalistic approach might suggest. We recognize that man is far from God in many ways but we don’t ‘condemn’ in a legalistic sense. We encourage them where they are to begin the journey of perfection. We encourage a life of prayer, fasting and alms-giving and frequent use of the Holy Mysteries to arm one another to pursue the work of holiness. Each individual finds themselves separated by differing degrees from God. It is our hope that this separation will close throughout the journey of faith. Because contraception does not ‘take’ a life as the Holy and Life-bearing Fathers once thought it has been the wisdom of the hierarchy to recognize this fact. Such does ‘not’ remove the fact that such acts are problematic as they could be signs of a lack of control of the passions. Ultimately this is the responsibility of one’s Confessor or Spiritual Father.
It is true that contraception has been around for a very long time if not forever but we must understand that how we understood procreation ‘has’ been greatly illuminated to the point that we now know that the sermo is not an actual zygote and thus not actually the ‘seed’ of life we once thought it to be. This changes how we must interpret the Greek Philosophies of procreation and the role of contraception in the act of the marriage bed. We must understand that such is not optimal behavior but also we must understand that such is not the destruction of life as it was once thought.
Because some wisely recognize that with contraception one must be very careful not to allow one’s passions to gain the upper head. It is well and good in the marriage bed as long as it does not give way to the misuse our spouses as objects for our lust but on the other hand the marriage bed should also not be a place of fear and anxiety because pregnancy would be ill-advised. Again this is not a case of intrinsic evil acts but needs a spiritual father or Confessor to determine.
This is why we must understand the reasons why the Holy and Life-bearing Fathers felt that contraception was morally evil and I have explained that. In the modern age we know that the sermo is not a zygote and so contraception, although potentially capable of misuse for the wrong reasons, is not inherently evil.
All that I could offer as a criticism to Rome is in the blindness that they exercise their canons without consideration of the reasons ‘why’ the Holy and Life-bearing Fathers held their opinions in the way they did and having the wisdom to know when to consider economia.
In there grasp for temporal power and ultimately papal infallibility the Western Church has painted themselves into a box which is there is no way out in my humble opinion. So this isn’t about Holy Orthodoxy and our teachings on contraception but on the box which the Western Church now finds itself due to their own grasping for infallible authority.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
not at all, because at that point, it’s natural for the egg not to be fertilized from the conjugal act. what is unatural is when you deliberately prevent conception by a barrier or medication or whatever.
what i find odd is that some modernist orthodox will use science to justify permitting a universally held gravely sinful act, yet will criticize the catholic church for using science to uphold God’s law.
good science and Holy Tradition as handed down by the orthodox church can never contradict because both are true.
S
SanJudas
Guest
I believe the answer lies here: As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’
Does NFP prevent the conception of offspring? No, it only reduces its probability. If, for reasons of practicing discipline, my wife and I indulged in sexual relations only once a month, would we be guilty of “preventing” conception?
What if my wife were infertile? Should we abstain from relations because we are “having sex only when there is little or no chance of conception?”
I know this may seem rather tricky but I think that somewhere in there lie the same thought processes of our Popes and bishops when they allow NFP.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
you seem to be saying that truth is subjective in that what was considered gravely immoral at one point in time, through science and a critical historical understanding of our church fathers and scripture, can change to good.
this is modernism and is antithetical to the orthodox faith.
contraception goes against God’s law of creation by intentionally frustrating the natural purpose and against our spouse by not accepting the life giving nature of the marital union, thereby not giving ourselves completely to one another. it’s an act that contradicts itself and is evil.
this moral judgment on contraception as held by our Holy Fathers is not based on a scientific understanding of the reproduction process but on our dignity and obligation as God’s children made in His image.
M
mtr01
Guest
Similarly, should one abstain from intercourse after one’s wife has gone through menopause?
Exactly. All of the above examples are natural occurrances according to the will of God. A woman has a naturally occurring cycle of fertility and non-fertility, and having relations during the periods of non-fertility is not sinful per se.
- Status