Orthodox Unchanged?

[Dan_Daly]

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.

Murder is a mortal sin.
Contraception is a mortal sin.

Anger may or may not be a mortal sin. Sometimes it is a mortal sin. Sometimes it may not be a sin at all, if the anger is just and controlled by a man’s reason- such as the anger displayed by Our Lord in ejecting the money changers from the temple.

There is nothing “puritanical” about regarding contraception as a mortal sin. It’s not following some Protestant influence on American society, it’s following the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Many, many people, lay and ordained, don’t really know much about the connection between contraception and abortion. Many use contraception but if asked about abortion, would say they would never even consider it. They say so with sincerity, but they also say so mistakenly, because they are uninformed. The most common means of contraception, “the pill”, is in fact an abortificient. Meaning it is not only designed to prevent conception, it is designed to kill a child in the event it fails at preventing conception.

Mortal sin is murder. Murder of the soul. The victim of a physical murder may in fact go to heaven, as the martyrs of the faith have. A victim of mortal sin, who dies in that state of bondage, spend eternity in Hell, seperated from God.

I do not mean to disparage any Orthodox priests. I quite honestly and sadly admit that grave misunderstanding of these issues is widespread among Catholics.

At the center of this discussion is the difficulty of finding “the official” Orthodox position. I have been told:

-The Orthodox permit abortion in the case of rape.
-The Orthodox never permit abortion.
-The Orthodox permit contraception.
-The Orthodox never permit contraception.

Again, I readily and sadly admit that confusing and contradicting statements like these are all too easy to find coming from Catholics, including Catholic priests. However, if I want to know what the Catholic CHURCH teaches- I can go to the doctrines of the Faith. I can find the official position of the Catholic Church, even if some members do not share it. Where do I go to find the position of the Orthodox Church?

Pax and God Bless.

 

[Dan_Daly]

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?

If the Orthodox permit contraception, they do not agree with Humanae Vitae.

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Pax

 

[Cavaradossi]

Where do I go to find the position of the Orthodox Church?

Pax and God Bless.

Here is an official statement from the Russian Orthodox Church (all emphases in bold and italics are from the document), the full text of which may be found here orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx:

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.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».

It is important to note that they address abortifacient contraceptives and rule them out as forbidden (I have not heard of a single Orthodox Church which allows for them). Contraception is allowed as a concession to human weakness, that the lack of sexual activity does not drive the married couple apart, but at the same time, it is recognized that bearing no children in a marriage is considered to be an act of selfishness. It is therefore recommended that the priest assesses the state of the couple and guides them into having children, when they are capable of caring for them. It is not a blanket allowance for contraception so long as one asks the priest.

As for abortion, the same document states:

The Church sees the widely spread and justified abortion in contemporary society as a threat to the future of humanity and a clear sign of its moral degradation. It is incompatible to be faithful to the biblical and patristic teaching that human life is sacred and precious from its origin and to recognise woman’s «free choice» in disposing of the fate of the foetus. In addition, abortion present a serious threat to the physical and spiritual health of a mother. The Church has always considered it her duty to protect the most vulnerable and dependent human beings, namely, unborn children. Under no circumstances the Orthodox Church can bless abortion. Without rejecting the women who had an abortion, the Church calls upon them to repent and to overcome the destructive consequences of the sin through prayer and penance followed by participation in the salvific Sacraments. In case of a direct threat to the life of a mother if her pregnancy continues, especially if she has other children, it is recommended to be lenient in the pastoral practice. The woman who interrupted pregnancy in this situation shall not be excluded from the Eucharistic communion with the Church provided that she has fulfilled the canon of Penance assigned by the priest who takes her confession. The struggle with abortion, to which women sometimes have to resort because of abject poverty and helplessness, demands that the Church and society work out effective measures to protect motherhood and to create conditions for the adoption of the children whose mothers cannot raise them on their own for some reason.

Basically, abortion is never permissible, but if an abortion is conducted in order to preserve the life of the mother, then the priest should be more lenient when assigning some sort of penance to the mother.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Orthodox Unchanged at least since 1960???

“Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before conception? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with His [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men–even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks” (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]). St. John Chrysostom:

Sigmund Freud calls contraceptive sex “PERVERSION”
Sigmund Freud, who had little sympathy for religion of any kind, regarded the separation of intercourse from its procreative end as a model of sexual perversity. The founder of modern psychoanalysis wrote: “. . . it is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently . . . Everything that . . . serves the pursuit of gratification alone is called by the unhonored title of ‘perversion’ and as such is despised.”

Jesuit theologian Robert V. O’Brien announced that although the Church had no “pipeline to heaven” on moral questions it recognized that “the contraceptive mentality is symptomatic of a sick civilization.”

Carl Jung, offers a powerful example of this when he describes the slave mentality, which flooded ancient Italy and caused every Roman to become inwardly and unwittingly a slave. Because the Roman lived “constantly in the atmosphere of slaves,” according to Jung, "he became infected through the unconscious with their psychology."1 Thus we refer, in our own time, to a “consumer mentality,” a “cold war mentality,” and a “contraceptive mentality.”

Physician R. S. J. Simpson has pointed out, that "the acceptance of contraception carries with it the virtual certainty that soon you will have to face up to a wide range of individual, family, and community evils which are the inevitable consequence of the contraceptive mentality.

The ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH seems to remain the Catholic Church. All others have gone the "“contraceptive mentality” route. Much wisdom in that thought process as we see.

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by dominikus28
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.

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.

Certainly no one who is the least bit informed claims that the Orthodox liturgy has not been changed from the time of the Apostles, or, for that matter, from the Patristic Age.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Certainly no one who is the least bit informed claims that the Orthodox liturgy has not been changed from the time of the Apostles, or, for that matter, from the Patristic Age.

Nope, we celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom exactly as Jesus delivered it to us.

Being serious, all liturgies have changed since the Apostolic age (of course, some will argue about the divine liturgy of St. James, but I doubt it’s been completely unchanged). In most cases, changes and additions to the liturgies (usually in the form of hymns) have reflected certain theological clarifications made in councils. I think both of us can agree that the hymns in Eastern Liturgies are usually didactic in nature (and as a bonus, they’re all for the Glory of God as well ).

The claim that Orthodoxy has not changed is a stupid one, as it would mean that Orthodoxy is dead. I think the better claim might be that the theological teachings and general message (its message of salvation and how that is achieved through theosis through the Son and in the Holy Spirit) of Orthodoxy today would be still be recognized by the many Church Fathers of the first few centuries of the Church, even after 1500 years or so have elapsed.

 

[dvdjs]

The claim that Orthodoxy has not changed is a stupid one, as it would mean that Orthodoxy is dead.

Thanks for this. I agree completely.

I think the better claim might be that the theological teachings and general message (its message of salvation and how that is achieved through theosis through the Son and in the Holy Spirit) of Orthodoxy today would be still be recognized by the many Church Fathers of the first few centuries of the Church, even after 1500 years or so have elapsed.

Perhaps. Certainly the general message. But the process of achieving… ? That is far less clear. Orthodoxy is now undergoing a neo-Patristic age that may make it seem that way. But it it is really a new synthesis of patristic thought in a modern age. I have doubts that how we view the Fathers is the same as how they were understood in their time. It is certainly different from how they were perceived 200 years ago. But the message, that is the same, and that sameness is by no means unique to Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks for this. I agree completely.

Perhaps. Certainly the general message. But the process of achieving… ? That is far less clear. Orthodoxy is now undergoing a neo-Patristic age that may make it seem that way. But it it is really a new synthesis of patristic thought in a modern age. I have doubts that how we view the Fathers is the same as how they were understood in their time. It is certainly different from how they were perceived 200 years ago. But the message, that is the same, and that sameness is by no means unique to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Yes, that is true. Achieving a freedom not seen since the times of the Eastern Roman Empire probably contributed to this revival. I’m sure that the Church Fathers in some way probably never would have conceived of a world where the Roman Empire (both East and West) had fallen, and where the East fell into captivity under the foot of Islam. I think it is not unreasonable, however, to claim that we understand doctrines, like the Trinity, the full humanity and full divinity of Christ, and the concept of icons in a way which is not foreign to the rich Tradition left to us by the Church Fathers. If our understanding truly is not unique (and I suspect that it is not, for clearly the near-union of the Copts with the Eastern Orthodox in the 19th century which was stopped by the unfortunate assassination of the Coptic Pope is evidence enough of this), then may those who also profess the same faith be one day brought together with us, if God be willing.

 

[Warrenton]

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.

NO, brother, I have a very high opinion of them. Nobody, I hope, would accuse them or advocating murder.

But we must be clear about the danger of sexual sin.

There is a reason the Fathers and the Desert Saints were so clear about it. For most of us, we have but limited ways to serve the Lord directly, if we are laymen and married. There is a reason that St. Paul tells us the single state is best. If we use our wives as an outlet for our lust, be sin the same sin that Christ warned the crowd who would stone the woman taken in adultery. Truly, the more we have engage in sexual conduct, whether in or out of the bounds of marriage, the more opportunity we give the demons to ensnare us.

Remember what St. Augustine of Hippo said: “What made me a slave to lust was the bait of satisfying an insatiable momentary urge.” I found that quote on an Orthodox website. You can read volumes to the same effect in other Fathers, or in the acts of the Desert Saints, all of whom predate the schism.

When we practice continence, we both avoid sin and make a just offering to the Lord. There is nothing most of us can do that is more difficult. St. Mark the Ascetic said that.

Don’t you see what this contraception is doing to us? It plays to our most basic weakness. It both robs us of the chance to make a good offering, and leads us into lust.
“What shall I render unto the Lord, for all He has rendered unto me?”

In our discussion, we are not addressing uncivilised people of the world, aborigines from the uttermost reaches of the earth, or savages. We are talking about Christian men - Greeks, Russians, French, Americans, Canadians, Britons. How can we, baptised in the Faith, approach God and say “Treat me, Lord, like an Unbeliever!” That’s the same as saying the Cross is too heavy. It is like saying “Non serviamus.”

We must protect each other from this kind of thing. You can hear the desperation with which Mr. Putin calls the Russian people. It is the same voice the Pope uses to call the West.

 

[Bluegoat]

Murder is a mortal sin.
Contraception is a mortal sin.

Anger may or may not be a mortal sin.

To think one can categorize sin absolutely this way is the mistake that leads to this kind of thinking. It’s a kind of binary idea of sin that just isn’t very accurate.

 

[Dan_Daly]

To think one can categorize sin absolutely this way is the mistake that leads to this kind of thinking. It’s a kind of binary idea of sin that just isn’t very accurate.

It is the thinking of the Catholic Church, which was founded by Christ. Contraception is a mortal sin.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Here is an official statement from the Russian Orthodox Church (all emphases in bold and italics are from the document), the full text of which may be found here orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx:

It is important to note that they address abortifacient contraceptives and rule them out as forbidden (I have not heard of a single Orthodox Church which allows for them). Contraception is allowed as a concession to human weakness, that the lack of sexual activity does not drive the married couple apart, but at the same time, it is recognized that bearing no children in a marriage is considered to be an act of selfishness. It is therefore recommended that the priest assesses the state of the couple and guides them into having children, when they are capable of caring for them. It is not a blanket allowance for contraception so long as one asks the priest.

As for abortion, the same document states:

Basically, abortion is never permissible, but if an abortion is conducted in order to preserve the life of the mother, then the priest should be more lenient when assigning some sort of penance to the mother.

Thank you for posting this.

Pax

 

[L_piperatus]

I have a problem with the concept that changing enforcement on a huge sin which was so strongly condemned and called as grave as murder, by the Early Church Fathers, would be similar to changing some prayer in the Divine Liturgy, or changing some specific regulations on fasting. In my understanding, the Church does have authority to change the Divine Liturgy and rules of fasting. But allowing someone to commit a grave sin, on reason of economy, i.e. a bishop/priest/spiritual father giving his explicit approval and blessing for a couple to commit an egregious sin, and say this is on account of economy, I think the Church has no authority to do such thing. However, it’s less important what I think.

The question is, did the Church ever teach, during the first 1000 years before the Great Schism of 1054, that a bishop or priest has the power, the authority entrusted to him by God, to tell someone they can sin, and give his blessing on someone sinning, on account of economy.

 

[L_piperatus]

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?

It looks like some of them do agree with Humanae Vitae that contraception is sinful, yet according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s book The Orthodox Church, not all Orthodox agree on this. I understand that the book is not the same as an authoritative document issued by an EO Church, but Metropolitan Ware says that some EO theologians do not regard contraception as sinful, and I’m confident the author of the book is well informed on the opinions and trends shaping the EOC today. So, since at least some Russians and Romanians condemn contraception as a serious sin, while other EO theologians do not regard it as sinful among spouses, the picture that emerges here is one of split opinions and disagreement between two camps in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

It is the thinking of the Catholic Church, which was founded by Christ. Contraception is a mortal sin.

Do you remember what the Catholic Church says is required for a sin to be mortal?

 

[L_piperatus]

Here’s a question, based on how Eastern Orthodox spiritual fathers will allow a couple to commit the sin of contraception, in order to prevent greater spiritual harm (apostasy, for example) coming to the couple.

I have known in my life three people whose spouses were weelchair-bound and unable to engage in sexual intercourse. One such husband (a former teacher of mine) was faithful to his disabled wife. Another husband (another teacher I had) established a sexual relationship with another woman, and the other woman even moved in with the couple - with the husband and his weelchair-bound wife. Yet a third woman (a former colleague) had a paralyzed husband, and she established a sexual relationship with another man. She even gave birth to a son from this man who wasn’t her husband, and while she continued to live with her disabled husband, she would regularly be seen in the company of her lover - the woman, the lover, and their child would go, for example, on various outings together.

So, here’s my question: would it be conceivable that an Eastern Orthodox spiritual father would give his blessing on the extramarital relationships I mentioned, on reason of economy? In all three cases I mentioned, the healthy spouses were put in a difficult situation of having to live long-term (in one case, for more than 25 years) with a disabled spouse who couldn’t satisfy their sexual needs. One of these folks was strong enough to handle it, the other two were not strong enough and they established adulterous relationships with a third party. If a spiritual father comes down hard on the cheating spouse, there’s clearly the risk that he/she will go into apostasy.

In the Catholic Church, no spiritual father would give his blessing on a spouse going elsewhere to satisfy his sexual needs, in a case like the ones I mentioned above. The healthy spouse would be told to accept this situation as his cross, unite it to the cross of Jesus Christ, and stay faithful to the paralyzed spouse. But I really wonder, how would the Eastern Orthodox principle of economy apply in such cases? Would the healthy spouses receive their EO spiritual fathers’ blessings to go ahead and cheat with a third party?

 

[L_piperatus]

Oops, here’s something even bigger: would the Eastern Orthodox spouses have the option to simply divorce their paralyzed spouses and marry other, healthy people, who could satisfy their sexual needs - all with the full approval and blessing of the EOC? Would the Eastern Orthodox priest preside over such a second marriage, and bless it in the name of God?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Oops, here’s something even bigger: would the Eastern Orthodox spouses have the option to simply divorce their paralyzed spouses and marry other, healthy people, who could satisfy their sexual needs - all with the full approval and blessing of the EOC? Would the Eastern Orthodox priest preside over such a second marriage, and bless it in the name of God?

Now you are just engaging in useless polemics. There is a very specific list of reasons for which a divorce is acceptable, and that certainly isn’t one of them. Perhaps you should learn something about Holy Orthodoxy before you attempt to trash it, but that would require some intellectual honesty, so I can see why that might be challenging. Perhaps you should start (if you are interested in learning rather than demeaning the Orthodox Church) by reading the document which I posted that lays down the Russian Orthodox Church’s exact position on contraception (it even includes the precise list of reasons for which a divorce is allowed, if you are so interested in seeing why your demeaning comments about Orthodoxy and the application of oikonomia are incorrect and ill-informed). Your questions are wholly disingenuous and insulting, and they fly completely in the face of reason.

 

[L_piperatus]

Now you are just engaging in useless polemics. There is a very specific list of reasons for which a divorce is acceptable, and that certainly isn’t one of them. Perhaps you should learn something about Holy Orthodoxy before you attempt to trash it, but that would require some intellectual honesty, so I can see why that might be challenging. Perhaps you should start (if you are interested in learning rather than demeaning the Orthodox Church) by reading the document which I posted that lays down the Russian Orthodox Church’s exact position on contraception (it even includes the precise list of reasons for which a divorce is allowed, if you are so interested in seeing why your demeaning comments about Orthodoxy and the application of oikonomia are incorrect and ill-informed). Your questions are wholly disingenuous and insulting, and they fly completely in the face of reason.

The idea doesn’t seem as far-fetched to me as you suggest. I’m thinking about the case of Tsar Peter the Great, who divorced his first wife Eudoxia and later married Catherine I. There’s a parallel there to the life of King Henry VIII, who schismed from Rome and established the Church of England, since the Pope would not approve of his divorce and remarriage. However in Peter’s Russia, the Eastern Orthodox Church did not prevent him from divorcing his wife and from marrying Catherine I. It was all about Peter dumping the woman he wasn’t in love with, and then finding this other woman who was more appealing to him, and who also bore him children and potential successors to the throne. Peter the Great would have had a big problem with Rome if he was Catholic - the Pope would have probably banned his effort for a Church-approved second marriage, just like a previous Pope did with Henry VIII. But luckily for Peter the Great, he was not Catholic. He was Eastern Orthodox, and the EO Church of Russia allowed him to divorce and remarry.

I didn’t see the EO guidelines for divorce in the quote you posted, and I thought that document was only about contraception and abortion. But I will go to the link you provided to educate myself about the EOC’s guidelines for divorce and remarriage.

 

[Warrenton]

In the Catholic Church, no spiritual father would give his blessing on a spouse going elsewhere to satisfy his sexual needs, in a case like the ones I mentioned above. … Would the healthy spouses receive their EO spiritual fathers’ blessings to go ahead and cheat with a third party?

Brother Piper: I have been in agreement with a lot of what you have written with respect to birth control and praxis. The last two posts, though, are not charitable.

Just because some bishops in the Orthodox community or some Catholic priests might give advice that is not in the best of our shared traditions, does not justify a sally of that nature. I mean, we don’t need Hesychios and other other Cassiodorus to cast clown masses and pentacostalism in our teeth, do we? The “Catholic News” threads are filled with plenty of bad news to go around.

I’ll say it again, with reference to Pope John Paul II and Bishop Hilarion: unity will come when the faithful of our churches and our clergy see the need for it. As laymen, we can hasten the process by refraining from labelling one church “The Holy…” and the other “schismatic” or “heretical”, as well as by saying “No priest of my church would ever…”

Both churches are holy, both are comprised of sinners. Both are under tremendous pressure from the world. Both are fighting Satan.

That much has remained unchanged with both churches (as the Orthodox bumper sticker says!) “since 3 AD.”

Cheers!