D
dominikus28
Guest
Yes, but they claim their teachings have no changed. And obviously they have in regards to contraception. I think we are all talking about the teachings changing, not the liturgy or anything else.
- Status
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Not all teachings though are the fundamental ones.
H
Harpazo
Guest
What are you talking about? Have you any proof? If I had a dime for every time I heard what you said…
How have we changed our teaching? Your post demonstrates the great divide between Orthodoxy and Rome. For us, it’s everything. There’s no difference between the teaching that occurs in the liturgy and what occurs in formal instruction. It’s the whole thing.In Christ,
Andrew
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The Orthodox teaching on contraception has not changed. It is still technically sinful. The application of oikonomia on the issue has differed, yes, but the teaching has not. This is what the Roman Catholics here are not understanding: making an allowance for something does not therefore teach that it is not sinful; it is merely that the allowance is made because to strictly enforce a prohibition against something would cause greater spiritual detriment to somebody than it would bring help.
Take for example a hypothetical convert to Orthodoxy who has anger issues and an addiction to pornography (both are very common, as you might guess, in the modern era). As a matter of economy, the priest might choose to temporarily overlook the pornography addiction because the anger issue likely causes more immediate harm to the convert and those around him than the pornography addiction. The priest would not be sanctioning the usage of pornography, but rather he would be making an admission that to try to break the addiction while working on the convert’s anger issues or trying to break the addiction before solving the convert’s anger issues would be more detrimental than trying to solve the anger issues first.
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Cavaradossi, Harpazo, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. So, I understand that your EO Churches continue to regard contraception as sinful, but make an allowance for it due to oikonomia.What are you talking about? Have you any proof? If I had a dime for every time I heard what you said…
Regarding Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s classic book The Orthodox Church, I’ve just re-read what he says in different editions of the book, and I realized that he is changing his attitude and the 1993 edition of his book says that many Orthodox scholars and spiritual fathers now outright reject the sinfulness of contraception (red emphasis mine):
"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."
See also previous post #73, documenting how Metropolitan Ware’s treatment of the subject changed from the 1963 edition of The Orthodox Church saying simply “Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church” to the 1993 edition casting doubt on the very sinfulness of contraception in marriage.
I’m really afraid next thing to change in more liberal EO circles will be the opinion on the sinfulness of abortion, seeing how there already have been cases of Orthodox couples aborting their children with the full approval and blessing of their spiritual fathers. Meanwhile I, myself am the product of a pregnancy that was labeled dangerous, probably lethal to my mother (she had a heart condition; both my mom and older sister went into cardiac arrest and almost died during the birth of my sister). The doctors strongly insisted that my mother should have me aborted, or else we both would probably die when I was going to be born. I fully expect some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches to cave in cases such as these, and as a matter of fact I already know of a similar case in an EOC in the USA where the child was aborted with the blessing of the parents’ spiritual father (the father of the aborted child is a member of CAF and he gave a first-hand account of what happened).
I also wonder what’s next, for the EOC’s changing views on moral issues? Maybe continue to say homosexuality is wrong, yet allow gay and lesbian couples to cohabit and engage in sexual behavior on the basis of oikonomia? I mean, if sex combined with contraception is wrong, yet it is allowed due to oikonomia, why not allow gay people to engage in sex? Also, I could see a case for allowing young hormonally-charged men to visit brothels every now and then, as well as allowing them to discharge their sexual tensions through masturbation, on account of oikonomia. It is because self-control, for gays, lesbians, and hormonally challenged young men, may cause anger issues and even motivate some of them into suicidal thoughts (quite well known in case of gay people). Thus allowing them to engage in gay/lesbian sex and premarital sex on reason of oikonomia might alleviate their other problems, including the risk of suicide.
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Yet, I would still hope that the Eastern Orthodox Churches, at least some of them, would resist the temptation to do what the Protestants did, and allow contraception, abortion, and the other evils linked to the Culture of Death. Here’s a more positive post I found from an EO guy from Romania, on an Orthodox forum - quoted from monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1420-Birth-control-among-various-Orthodox-groups :
**As far as I know, birth control is considered as a “big” sin. One of the Holy Fathers (can’t remember which one) says that the same way abortion is equal to murder, contraception methods means attemptive murder (I think that’s the English term). **
Another post from the same poster:
**Justin, all the Spiritual Fathers I know (here in Romania) say that contraception is a sin. In fact, as far as I knew, there never was an issue about this (only now I became aware of this). I searched all the Enchiridia of canons I have, but unfortunately I was unable to find anything about this.
But the reason contraception is a sin is the fact that it neglects the comandement of God from Genesis (1, 28) “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it”. The numerous reasons that are given by those that are pro-contraception (as I read through the articles presented on this discussion) can all be used in a pro-abortion arguement, and in fact are the same: the parents do not feel they are ready for having children, or for growing they rightly (as if they are the ones that grow the children, and not Lord, see Mt 6,27: Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life (I like better the Romanian translation: who of you by worrying can add a single inch to his height)). Another reason is that the woman might be ill, and might even die at birth. Not regarding the fact that women who die at birth are regarded at martyrs and they go directly to the Heavenly Kingdom, St. Basil says that those women that will not want to have children due to illness should live in abstinence.
In Christ,
Vlad**
Thus, my research indicates that there is some hope still regarding the various EOC, because the Russians and Romanians haven’t caved yet on the issue of contraception, even if other more liberal EO Churches have. From a Catholic standpoint, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Evangelical Protestants are our closest Christian allies in the fight against the Culture of Death. Interestingly, though, the Muslims can also be our allies on this. At a UN Population Conference in Cairo, Egypt, nobody stood up for Pope John Paul II when he criticized the UN’s population control agenda, except for the Muslims. They defended the Pope.
**As far as I know, birth control is considered as a “big” sin. One of the Holy Fathers (can’t remember which one) says that the same way abortion is equal to murder, contraception methods means attemptive murder (I think that’s the English term). **
Another post from the same poster:
**Justin, all the Spiritual Fathers I know (here in Romania) say that contraception is a sin. In fact, as far as I knew, there never was an issue about this (only now I became aware of this). I searched all the Enchiridia of canons I have, but unfortunately I was unable to find anything about this.
But the reason contraception is a sin is the fact that it neglects the comandement of God from Genesis (1, 28) “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it”. The numerous reasons that are given by those that are pro-contraception (as I read through the articles presented on this discussion) can all be used in a pro-abortion arguement, and in fact are the same: the parents do not feel they are ready for having children, or for growing they rightly (as if they are the ones that grow the children, and not Lord, see Mt 6,27: Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life (I like better the Romanian translation: who of you by worrying can add a single inch to his height)). Another reason is that the woman might be ill, and might even die at birth. Not regarding the fact that women who die at birth are regarded at martyrs and they go directly to the Heavenly Kingdom, St. Basil says that those women that will not want to have children due to illness should live in abstinence.
In Christ,
Vlad**
Thus, my research indicates that there is some hope still regarding the various EOC, because the Russians and Romanians haven’t caved yet on the issue of contraception, even if other more liberal EO Churches have. From a Catholic standpoint, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Evangelical Protestants are our closest Christian allies in the fight against the Culture of Death. Interestingly, though, the Muslims can also be our allies on this. At a UN Population Conference in Cairo, Egypt, nobody stood up for Pope John Paul II when he criticized the UN’s population control agenda, except for the Muslims. They defended the Pope.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
What is contraception permited as a means for then?
Use of contraception is a mortal sin. If someone teaches that use of contraception is ever permitted, then they are teaching that a mortal sin is ok.
Pax
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I do agree, that in PRACTICE, many Catholics view NFP as simply “Contraception the Church is okay with”. Many people never learned or quickly forgot about the requirements for even attempting to use NFP in order to delay pregnancy. The method is greatly abused in a manner, that I would agree, does not leave much seperation between it and contraception. It can quickly lead to a contraceptive mindset.
Pax.
Pax.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I wouldn’t use Metropolitan Kallistos as an authoritative source when it comes to Orthodoxy. His work is good, but it’s also political to some degree, with the hope of presenting a more ecumenism friendly face of the Church (much like many post-Vatican II Catholics). That being said, however, I wouldn’t say that caving is necessarily the right word for the correct application of oikonomia. In many instances, adhering too strictly to the rules might drive people to apostasy, which is outright undesirable. It might help to look at the use of oikonomia in another context to properly understand its application on a pastoral level (devoid of the highly emotional context which surrounds the issue of contraception).
Fasting makes for a good example. In the Orthodox Church there are rather rigid guidelines for fasting which should be held by the laity (to the point that those who break them should probably not receive communion that week). The normal fasting regimen on a week to week basis is that no meat, dairy, eggs, fish, oil or wine may be consumed on Wednesdays and Fridays. However, for converts as well as those who have fallen away from the faith, the idea of fasting that strictly is often quite daunting. To tell them that they should immediately observe the full fasting rules would likely drive them into apostasy, so the priest therefore has the option to relax the fasting requirements on a case-by-case basis, with the understanding that the inability to fast reflects a spiritual weakness in the parishioner which should be improved over time, and with the goal that eventually the parishioner will be able to observe the fast completely. There’s nothing really wrong with applying oikonomia to other sins like contraception in this manner, so long as the parishioner is made aware of the sinful nature of what he is doing, with the goal to strive towards achieving the strength to go without sinning in that particular manner.
Fasting makes for a good example. In the Orthodox Church there are rather rigid guidelines for fasting which should be held by the laity (to the point that those who break them should probably not receive communion that week). The normal fasting regimen on a week to week basis is that no meat, dairy, eggs, fish, oil or wine may be consumed on Wednesdays and Fridays. However, for converts as well as those who have fallen away from the faith, the idea of fasting that strictly is often quite daunting. To tell them that they should immediately observe the full fasting rules would likely drive them into apostasy, so the priest therefore has the option to relax the fasting requirements on a case-by-case basis, with the understanding that the inability to fast reflects a spiritual weakness in the parishioner which should be improved over time, and with the goal that eventually the parishioner will be able to observe the fast completely. There’s nothing really wrong with applying oikonomia to other sins like contraception in this manner, so long as the parishioner is made aware of the sinful nature of what he is doing, with the goal to strive towards achieving the strength to go without sinning in that particular manner.
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Right now there’s a thread going on at CAF Family Life, where a poster came and uttered a dramatic “j’accuse” against “they” who mislead poor Catholics wishing to NFP-contracept, promising success rates of 99.7% in avoiding conception - whereas the actual real “success rates” seem to be lower, meaning that people still get pregnant pretty regularly while practicing NFP.
The “they” who make the promises of NFP being more effective than condoms and birth control pills, seem to be the instructors of NFP.
Meanwhile, the only official document I know from the Catholic Church is Pope Pius XI saying in *Casti Connubii *that abstinence is not sinful for those who wish to avoid having children. It makes me wonder, did the NFP instructors take an official teaching by the Catholic Church and twisted it to the point where it became “Catholic contraception”? Will we see the Catholic Church issuing some statement to rein in what seems like abuse by the NFP instructors’ lobby?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I think that having such a legalistic view of sin is not very useful. If you are a priest, and it comes between having one of your flock go into apostasy and making a pastoral decision to allow for contraception, which is preferable? The Church is here to nurture the sick through Christ and in the Holy Spirit, not to enforce a set of God-given laws. It’s easy to sit back in your chair and say over the internet, “X is wrong and should never be permitted,” but it becomes much harder in practical application. Think of contraception as any other sin (like anger), instead of being a sexual sin (which in America carries all sorts of strange emotional connotations because of our puritanical background), and I think you might better understand the Orthodox viewpoint. Although anger is a terrible sin, priests rarely will forbid people from communing if they’ve had an outburst of anger that week, so long as they are penitent about it, and this understanding in no way undermines the teaching that anger is sinful. Why should we treat contraception any differently?
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Folks, here’s information from a scholarly book dealing with medieval Slavic history, again re-quoted from the Monachos website monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1420-Birth-control-among-various-Orthodox-groups/page2& :
**Quoting from a book by Eve Levin entitled, Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slaves, 900-1700, the author states:
“Because only the birth of a child justified sexual intercourse between husband and wife, any attempt to prevent conception was regarded as evil. From the medieval Slavic perspective, contraception, abortion, and infanticide were similar offenses; provision against birth control did no always distinguish among them. All three represented the same thing: an attempt to forestall the introduction into the world of a new soul. For that reason, all three offenses were sometimes call dusegube, literally ‘the destruction of a soul’”; *Levin, 1989, pp. 175-176. ***
I assume when the author speaks about medieval Slavic perspective, he speaks essentially about medieval Eastern Orthodox perspective, because most Slavic people and notably the largest group, the Russians, were Eastern Orthodox. I think this is an indication that the medieval Slavic Eastern Orthodox Churches did regard contraception, abortion, and infanticide as similar offenses.
So, when some Eastern Orthodox Churches allow today contraception, but not abortion and infanticide, on reason of oikonomia, I would argue that’s a departure from the past. I guess in the medieval past all three (contraception, abortion, infanticide) were strictly forbidden and no allowance was made for contraception on the basis of oikonomia. I just can’t see a medieval Slavic EO Church allowing contraception, given how Slavic culture regarded all three members of the contraception-abortion-infanticide triad as similar evils.
**Quoting from a book by Eve Levin entitled, Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slaves, 900-1700, the author states:
“Because only the birth of a child justified sexual intercourse between husband and wife, any attempt to prevent conception was regarded as evil. From the medieval Slavic perspective, contraception, abortion, and infanticide were similar offenses; provision against birth control did no always distinguish among them. All three represented the same thing: an attempt to forestall the introduction into the world of a new soul. For that reason, all three offenses were sometimes call dusegube, literally ‘the destruction of a soul’”; *Levin, 1989, pp. 175-176. ***
I assume when the author speaks about medieval Slavic perspective, he speaks essentially about medieval Eastern Orthodox perspective, because most Slavic people and notably the largest group, the Russians, were Eastern Orthodox. I think this is an indication that the medieval Slavic Eastern Orthodox Churches did regard contraception, abortion, and infanticide as similar offenses.
So, when some Eastern Orthodox Churches allow today contraception, but not abortion and infanticide, on reason of oikonomia, I would argue that’s a departure from the past. I guess in the medieval past all three (contraception, abortion, infanticide) were strictly forbidden and no allowance was made for contraception on the basis of oikonomia. I just can’t see a medieval Slavic EO Church allowing contraception, given how Slavic culture regarded all three members of the contraception-abortion-infanticide triad as similar evils.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. A change in how oikonomia is applied in order to deal with modern issues is not a change in the underlying faith (i.e., the understanding that contraception is sinful), only a change in the relationship of the Church to man. If the Church cannot exhibit this sort of flexibility, then the Church is truly dead by the letter rather than alive by the Spirit. In the same way that God’s plan for mankind’s salvation (the original use of the term oikonomia) is an ever-living relationship between God, man, and His Church, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, so too must the Church have an everlasting ministry for man through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and this means that sometimes, practices will change without necessarily undermining the faith which the practices express.
People also do not typically stand segregated by gender in Orthodox Churches in America, and the women do not typically cover their hair here, and even worse, the men emasculate themselves by shaving (oh, the horror, I know). Do these things reflect a radical departure of faith or simply a change in practice reflective of how human culture has changed? And what about clerical celibacy, which was not a required discipline in the early Church, was its introduction as a discipline a radical departure from the faith of the Apostles? Things can change in practice without the underlying faith and morality behind them changing.
T
theistgal
Guest
The real proof of a church’s commitment to life is in the size of the families attending Mass or Liturgy every Sunday morning.
In our Eastern Catholic parishes, I see large families getting ever larger - one of our parish families just chrismated their 15th baby!
Same in the Eastern Orthodox parishes I visit. Lots of big families.
So obviously (and yes, anecdotally!
), whether EC or EO, contraception doesn’t seem to be used all that much, no matter what the “official” teachings are!
What is the situation in the Western churches? I haven’t been to one for ages - are Western Catholics still having big families, 3 or 4 or more?
In our Eastern Catholic parishes, I see large families getting ever larger - one of our parish families just chrismated their 15th baby!
Same in the Eastern Orthodox parishes I visit. Lots of big families.
So obviously (and yes, anecdotally!
), whether EC or EO, contraception doesn’t seem to be used all that much, no matter what the “official” teachings are!What is the situation in the Western churches? I haven’t been to one for ages - are Western Catholics still having big families, 3 or 4 or more?
H
Hesychios
Guest
It sounds to me like it was Pope Pius XI who did that.
W
Warrenton
Guest
This is true, but the letter killeth in a different way than perpetual sinning killeth. The wages of sin are death.
W
Warrenton
Guest
This was sad to read.
Take it from a traditionalist Catholic - if the devil can change the praxis, he cares not about the belief. He can capture the soul either through the mind or the body.
Who thinks Satan will have any lack of believers with him in hell?
After Vatican 2, no end of people told us Catholics that only the discipline changed, only the external practice changed, that none of that affected doctrine. MAny believed them. Now, look at the state of the Catholic Church. Is it healthier than in the 1950s? Is it more orthodox? Are the faithful more faithful? Is there more or less unity?
Beware the subtleties of the devil. Beware anyone who tells you accomodation can be made with sin, even a priest, even a bishop. Look to see what is happening. The way you can tell if it is merely an accomodation is whether the sin accomodated is increasing or decreasing. The saints made many accomodations to the pagans of Rus, I am sure, in 1000 years ago. But steadily, the people became holier. IF that;s not happening, there is your proof.
Also, beware any accomodation that caters to our deepest held sins.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
The ban on contraception must be enforced precisely because it is a God given law. If a man comes to his priest and says I’m either going to murder someone or I’m going to leave the Church, the priest can not approve of murder in order to keep the man from falling away from the Faith. It’s nonsensical, because even if he is present at Liturgy and says the words of the creed, as long as he is in mortal sin he IS away from the faith. Likewise with contraception.
I understand that the actual personal interactions between family member and priests and their flock can be difficult. God gives us strenght. One should love all people, but hate all sins. Contraception is a mortal sin. How is it loving to “save” someone from apostasy by approving of something that can send them to hell for all eternity? Someone who wants to use contraception is spiritually sick. As you said it is the Church’s job to minister to them, and the best medicine is the Truth of Christ.
Pax.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
You must have a low opinion of Orthodox priests, if you think one would ever allow for murder with oikonomia. The problem with your analogy is that contraception and murder are not equivalent. Of course there is one sin which our Lord himself did equate to murder: anger. Why are the angry allowed to commune? I just don’t understand the need to be so puritanical about sexual sins when far more damaging sins like anger and unforgiveness are overlooked in favor of making sure that people are not using contraception.
D
dominikus28
Guest
So basically, Orthodox agree with Humanae Vitae.
And oikonomia is simply a way of managing the sinful nature of man - so prioritising the worst sins…
Am I kind of right?
And oikonomia is simply a way of managing the sinful nature of man - so prioritising the worst sins…
Am I kind of right?
- Status