![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/03\/WareKallistos.jpg\")
<\/center>*****<\/p>\n
Thanks for your critique. I much appreciate its reasonableness and amiable, inquisitive nature.<\/p>\n
On Dave Armstrong\u2019s \u201cOrthodoxy\u201d page, under the \u201cDoctrinal\u00a0and moral compromises\u201d section, there is an article decrying the \u201cchanging standards\u201d of Orthodoxy on the issue of artificial contraception.\u00a0<\/span>The<\/span> article, written by William Klimon<\/a>, gives only two pieces of evidence in support of this premise, with both evidences being impugnable at best.<\/span><\/p>\n The first piece of evidence submitted is an examination of the book\u00a0The\u00a0<\/em>Orthodox Church<\/em>, by Bishop Kallistos [Ware]. Comparing various editions from over\u00a0the years (he quotes from the 1963, 1984, and 1993 editions), Klimon comes to the conclusion that this book \u201creveals\u201d an \u201calarming departure from Orthodox and previously universal Christian Tradition\u201d. In an attempt to validate this as something more than one theologian\u2019s opinion, Klimon says that the book is \u201ca widely-cited and\u00a0authoritative source on Orthodox teaching\u201d. The book is most certainly popular among those new to Orthodoxy, that is not disputed. However, I would like to know on what basis Klimon calls\u00a0The Orthodox Church<\/em>\u00a0an \u201cauthoritative source on Orthodox teaching\u201d? Does the number of citations make something authoritative? And what exactly is meant by \u201cauthoritative\u201d in this context? Surely Mr. Klimon is not calling Bishop Kallistos infallible; so what we are left with is a man who has written a popular book.<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed it is a widely-cited and standard popular source of Orthodox teaching\u00a0and distinctives. This can hardly be denied. No one is saying that it is the\u00a0equivalent of dogma or statements of bishops and jurisdictions, etc.\u00a0Nevertheless, if Metr. Kallistos states in his book the existence of certain\u00a0sociological realities within Orthodoxy, I think he should be accorded the\u00a0benefit of the doubt, as a high-placed, well-known, and influential person\u00a0in those ranks. I should think that the burden of demonstrating otherwise\u00a0(as to the facts) would fall upon the person who questions the sociological\u00a0\/ ecclesiological observation (that presumably including you in this present\u00a0instance).<\/p>\n In my experience (I have several Orthodox friends, and have dialogued with\u00a0many also), it is common knowledge that the Orthodox, broadly speaking,\u00a0permit contraception (as they do divorce). This (concerning contraception) has been admitted to me by more \u201ctraditional\u201d Orthodox friends, such as those in ROCOR.\u00a0I saw you casually admit it, too, in another post (which is the whole point;\u00a0the\u00a0fact\u00a0is not disputed even by you).<\/p>\n It is also true that ROCOR itself prohibits contraception, I believe. But\u00a0that doesn\u2019t mean that it is representative of Orthodoxy as a whole. It is not. ROCOR doesn\u2019t even recognize the validity of sacraments of some other\u00a0major Orthodox jurisdictions, let alone those of Catholicism or Protestantism. That\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0the mainstream Orthodox position, as I understand it (though\u00a0admittedly it is confusing, as almost everything in Orthodoxy seems to be).<\/p>\n As to \u201cofficial\u201d Orthodoxy, well, you tell\u00a0me\u00a0(you should figure this out if\u00a0you are considering converting, and if you have any concerns as to moral\u00a0theology in Orthodoxy, as I did before I converted to Catholicism). This has\u00a0been a long-running problem, and I have yet to receive a satisfactory\u00a0explanation for how to resolve competing factions within Orthodoxy.<\/p>\n Of course, Catholicism, in contrast, has this means in the papacy, as well\u00a0as in Ecumenical Councils and things like the\u00a0Catechism of the Catholic The Orthodox Christian Information Center<\/a>\u00a0has a critique on Bishop Kallistos\u2019 work, and advises people \u201cto approach\u00a0The Orthodox Church\u00a0and, in particular, this new, revised version with extreme caution\u201d. The\u00a0<\/span>critique goes on to say that:<\/span><\/p>\n Likewise, when it comes to birth control, we can see an obvious shift of moral ground in Bishop Kallistos\u2019 views. Whereas in 1963, His Grace said that artificial contraception was forbidden in the Orthodox Church, he now remarks that \u201ctoday a less strict view is coming to prevail\u201d (p. 296). This is an area in which there really are differences of opinion even among Traditionalist Orthodox, and on which it is probably best to avoid making bold pronouncements.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now you\u2019re merely strengthening\u00a0my\u00a0case (and William Klimon\u2019s); see how it\u00a0is admitted that the compromise is now in place even amongst self-proclaimed\u00a0traditionalist\u00a0Orthodox? What more need be said? My Church\u00a0does\u00a0make \u201cbold\u00a0pronouncements,\u201d and this is one of its glories and marks of identity, but\u00a0even some of the more orthodox Orthodox (in their self-understanding) will\u00a0not take a firm stand. Nor can there be any means to prohibit contraception\u00a0amongst all Orthodox, even if this were desired. What would it\u00a0be, pray\u00a0tell? The different Orthodox groups can\u2019t even unite\u00a0institutionally, let\u00a0alone on a\u00a0moral\u00a0issue such as this one.<\/p>\n This is a major reason why I am a Catholic and not an Orthodox. I wanted\u00a0apostolic, early Christianity in its fullness, including moral teaching. I don\u2019t want to have anything to do with fashionable compromises and the moral\u00a0relativism and sexual liberalism of our own age. Contraception was, in fact,\u00a0the first issue which started me on the road to Catholicism (having been\u00a0heavily involved in the pro-life movement). The documented legal,\u00a0philosophical, psychological, and social connection between contraception\u00a0and abortion is even more alarming and disturbing with regard to such a position.<\/p>\n But it is manifestly unwise to challenge a widely accepted\u00a0standard\u2013that of clear opposition to the free use of contraceptives by\u00a0Christian couples\u2013with what is \u201ctrendy\u201d or \u201cis coming to prevail.\u201d This is\u00a0not an Orthodox view of how the Church comes to guide its Faithful.<\/span><\/p>\n Then why the reluctance to make \u201cbold pronouncements\u201d? This, to me,\u00a0encapsulates one of the serious problems in Orthodoxy and indeed in all groups other than the Catholic Church, which alone preserves traditional\u00a0theological and moral teaching in its glorious, undiluted fullness.<\/p>\n G.K. Chesterton is very popular as well, and \u201coften-cited\u201d. That doesn\u2019t\u00a0make his work infallible, and it only makes it authoritative in-so-far as it<\/span> I agree. We aren\u2019t arguing that, anyway. It is a red herring. But he can be\u00a0trusted for\u00a0sociological pronouncements<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0on Catholicism-at-large, just as Metr.\u00a0Kallistos can be for Orthodoxy-at-large (if you disagree, then please\u00a0explain why). That is the relevant issue here, not whether popularizers are\u00a0speaking dogmatically. They clearly are not. If \u201cofficial\u201d Orthodoxy opposes\u00a0contraception as we do, in some magisterial statement, then you go do some\u00a0research (I\u2019m too busy), ask\u00a0them\u00a0and report back to us. I will be watching with great interest. Nothing you have shown to me thus far suggests otherwise (quite the contrary).<\/p>\n If Orthodox apologists, priests, theologians, or whatever can\u2019t even report\u00a0to you conclusively and authoritatively what the true Orthodox position on\u00a0this matter is (if indeed there is none and it is up for grabs), then my case is yet stronger. On the other hand, if you personally wish to accept contraception as a perfectly moral practice, then you have to explain why no Christian group accepted this notion until 1930. Luther and Calvin, e.g., thought it was\u00a0murder\u00a0(going far beyond even the Catholic position).<\/p>\n The same principle can be seen in the book\u00a0The Orthodox Church<\/em>; this\u00a0book was never declared to be authoritative, and certainly not binding. Like\u00a0the\u00a0Didache<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0On the Incarnation<\/em>, it is a text that is helpful, nothing\u00a0more. It may be often-cited, but it is not authoritative in any binding way.<\/span><\/p>\n I understand that. But does it actually reflect the state of affairs on\u00a0contraception? As far as I understand the situation to be, it does. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise, by your own research into the matter. All\u00a0of this will end up on my website, whatever the outcome of your inquiries,\u00a0because I think it is a crucial moral issue, and also a clear line dividing\u00a0Orthodoxy and Catholicism (to our vast advantage).<\/p>\n The second piece of \u201cevidence\u201d is even less persuasive, with the entire\u00a0evidence being stated thusly: \u201cI have heard Orthodox clerics today, on the\u00a0<\/span>other hand, encourage the use of contraception. There is a \u2018green\u2019 streak in\u00a0Orthodoxy that has led some, e.g., to jump on the overpopulation bandwagon.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n What kind of argument is that?<\/span><\/p>\n Technically speaking, it is not an argument, but another sociological\u00a0observation, which can then be verified or falsified (which\u00a0would<\/em>\u00a0be arguments).<\/p>\n I have heard Catholic priests say it\u2019s okay to use contraceptives, and I\u2019m\u00a0sure if I did a survey I could get some of them to admit that they affirmed\u00a0the idea that the world is overpopulated. Does that then mean that the\u00a0Catholic Church has compromised on a moral issue? Certainly not, it\u2019s not a\u00a0valid position regardless of what church you are examining.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s right. Bingo! You have hit upon the big difference here.\u00a0We\u00a0have\u00a0resolved the issue, and it matters not if 99% of all professed Catholics dissent. It is resolved dogmatically, and will not change (just like female\u00a0priests, abortion, the sinfulness of homosexual acts, and a host of other issues). Praise God! But Orthodoxy apparently has not, and I would say\u00a0cannot<\/em>\u00a0make a similar pronouncement, because it has no uniting structural and\u00a0dogmatic authority to do so. And therein lies a much larger problem of\u00a0ecclesiology and authority per se.<\/p>\n So, going on these two questionable pieces of evidence, Mr. Klimon feels\u00a0<\/span>justified saying that \u201cClearly, Orthodoxy is compromising with the spirit of\u00a0<\/span>the age with regard to this issue of the permissibility of the use of\u00a0<\/span>artificial contraception and methods of birth control.\u201d You\u2019ll have to\u00a0<\/span>forgive me if I don\u2019t see things as being so clear.<\/span><\/p>\n You may not, but many Orthodox do see this. Not only Metr. Kallistos, but\u00a0even the \u201ctraditionalist\u201d you cite above plainly admits it, and many Orthodox I have dialogued with do also.<\/p>\n I\u2019m sure there is more \u201cevidence\u201d out there, so if you know of some,\u00a0<\/span>please present it.<\/span><\/p>\n I have a little bit more, which I will cite below. Now I shall cite The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers<\/em>, by Fr. Stanley S. Harakas (Minneapolis: Light & Life Publishing Co., 1987, 40-42). I think it is most enlightening (and tragic). Words from the book will be in brown<\/span>:<\/p>\n [Question no.] 56. What beliefs does the Orthodox Church have about birth\u00a0control?<\/span><\/p>\n Within modern Orthodox Christianity, varying views on the subject exist .\u00a0. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n What should be noted at the beginning is that this lack of clarity has\u00a0its roots in some of the tradition of the church itself. Basically, it is to<\/span> He goes on to recount a positive tradition regarding sex as a blessing,\u00a0gift, sacrament, etc.<\/p>\n [T]he powerful influence of monasticism has tended not only to lower\u00a0the estimation of married life, but also to equate sex in general to a\u00a0<\/span>condition not quite fitting and appropriate for Christians, if not, in fact,\u00a0sinful. At its extreme, this view held that marriage itself was nothing but\u00a0<\/span>\u2018legalized fornication.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n I would argue that this is a gross and slanderous caricature of monasticism \u2014 both Orthodox and Catholic \u2013, and typical of a trendy, modernist revisionist approach to the history of Christianity, including within itself\u00a0the typical animus against the celibacy requirements for Catholic priests in\u00a0the western, Latin rite.<\/p>\n Both these views have been held and promulgated through the years within\u00a0the church, even though they are mutually inconsistent. This inconsistency\u00a0has been reflected in approaches to the question of contraception . . .<\/span><\/p>\n He proceeds to contrast the \u201cnegative\u201d view of sex, which he calls the\u00a0\u201cNatural Law\u201d view, with the more positive one which includes contraception,\u00a0called the \u201cSacramental View\u201d:<\/p>\n The approach of Fr. [Chrysostom] Zafiris\u2019 article and that supported in\u00a0Fr. John Meyendorff\u2019s book Marriage: an Orthodox Perspective<\/em>, places the\u00a0emphasis for the meaning of sex in general and contraception in particular\u00a0on the whole experience of marriage as a holy, interpersonal relationship\u00a0within the total framework of the Christian life. The approach sees marriage\u00a0and the sex within it as having many purposes, none of which is seen as the\u00a0crucial and exclusive purpose . . .<\/span><\/p>\n That is, procreative and unitive, as in the Catholic perspective. We forbid\u00a0the deliberate frustration of the former by artificial means, during fertile\u00a0periods. We do\u00a0not\u00a0forbid sex for unitive reasons during non-fertile\u00a0periods, nor limiting numbers of children, nor spacing children (for properly serious reasons), as is often wrongly supposed.<\/p>\n [W]thin this perspective contraception is not condemned, but rather\u00a0it is seen as a means for the furthering of the goals and purposes of\u00a0<\/span>marriage as understood by the church.<\/span><\/p>\n . . . against the unanimous teaching of the early and medieval and even\u00a019th-century Christian Church at large, which spectacularly and inexplicably\u00a0\u201cgot it wrong,\u201d I guess, according to Fr. Harakas and others in Orthodoxy\u00a0who follow this line of thought.<\/p>\n Normally, it would be wrong to use contraceptives to avoid the birth of\u00a0any children. However, once children have been born, the use of\u00a0<\/span>contraceptives by the parents does not seem to violate any fundamental\u00a0Christian understanding of marriage.<\/span><\/p>\n WHICH IS MORE CORRECT?<\/span><\/p>\n As we have indicated, there is evidence in the history of the church to\u00a0provide support for both approaches. That is why there is still discussion\u00a0<\/span>and controversy. Even our archdiocese has responded differently at different\u00a0times. In older issues of the archdiocese \u2018yearbook\u2019 a strong negative\u00a0attitude was expressed. In more recent issues, a position was taken,\u00a0indicating that this was a private matter, involving the couple alone, which\u00a0was to be discussed with the Father Confessor.<\/span><\/p>\n This exactly verifies Metr. Kallistos Ware\u2019s point, and ours. This is an\u00a0absolutely classic example of the theologically liberal, modernist mindset. What was once a morally absolute evil and sin has now become \u2014 in our own\u00a0enlightened, progressive age \u2013, merely a \u201cprivate matter\u201d (i.e., optional\u00a0and permissible). This is quintessential liberal relativistic ethics, and\u00a0the secularist separation of \u201cprivate\u201d from public virtue and morality,\u00a0which is also a crucial plank of current pro-abortion rhetoric and\u00a0propagandizing. This buys one of the underlying principles of the sexual\u00a0revolution \u2014 as to individual sexual autonomy \u2014 hook, line, and sinker.<\/p>\n It\u2019s\u00a0very sad and distressing to see this in a major work purportedly (actually?)\u00a0expressing the viewpoints of Orthodoxy. It\u2019s no wonder that Fr. Harakas also\u00a0accepts deliberate abortion in cases of rape and danger to the life of the\u00a0mother, in the same book. He is at least logically consistent, if not in\u00a0line with the history of Christian morality.<\/p>\n What we are saying is that if a married couple has children, or is\u00a0spacing the birth of their children, and wishes to continue sexual relations<\/span> . . . typical, high-sounding, liberal rhetoric, entirely missing the cogent and\u00a0relevant moral and historical points, filled with non sequiturs<\/em>, and based\u00a0on a grossly exaggerated false dichotomy of two supposed competing\u00a0traditions on sex in Church history: viz., the \u201csex as quasi-evil and a regrettable duty \/ monastic\u201d theory and the \u201csacramental, unitive, positive,\u00a0holistic\u201d school which, of course is perfectly in line, we are told, with the contraceptive anti-child mentality, which itself happens to coincide\u00a0with the Planned Parenthood, eugenicist, abortionist mentality and zeitgeist\u00a0of our own time. Just a coincidence . . .<\/p>\n Fr. Harakas also touched on contraception in his treatment of abortion on\u00a0pages 1-2. Incidentally, he chooses to first present his teaching about abortion in the context of a question having to do with rape only (also the\u00a0classic pro-abort strategy to legitimize abortion; to open the door to abortion-on-demand, just as the Anglicans first justified contraception in\u00a0hard cases only, in 1930. Human nature never changes). At least he does\u00a0treat it more generally in the next question.<\/p>\n His little treatise contains such stupid, inane, and scandalous statements\u00a0such as:<\/p>\n Regardless of what the Church or moralists may say, it is understandable\u00a0why women who have been raped feel so terrible.<\/span><\/p>\n . . . as if this is some extraordinary, newfound realization among killjoy,\u00a0cruel, puritanical, \u201cmoralist\u201d anti-sex Christians: that a woman who has been raped would feel \u201cso terrible\u201d.<\/p>\n He goes on to advocate murdering a resultant child on the grounds that it\u00a0may not yet be implanted in the womb, which is both a biologically and morally irrelevant consideration. Conception may have occurred; if it has,\u00a0an abortion is murder, pure and simple. A soul has already been directly\u00a0created by God, and all the genetic material that is needed for the entire\u00a0life of the child is present. Fr. Harakas would do good to realize that this\u00a0morally bankrupt position is \u201cso terrible\u201d as well. Especially it would\u00a0\u201cfeel so terrible\u201d to God and to the child being murdered, however young he\u00a0or she might be.<\/p>\n Then he writes about contraception:<\/p>\n Because of a lack of a clear understanding of the reproductive\u00a0<\/span>process, methods which were contraceptive in intent and form were often\u00a0<\/span>included in this prohibition\u00a0[of abortion, in the early Church].\u00a0Some\u00a0<\/span>Orthodox teachers, bishops, and clergy still maintain this to be true\u00a0[gee,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>I wonder how many \u201csome\u201d is?]<\/span>.\u00a0Many others\u00a0[ah, a majority?]<\/span>,\u00a0however, are\u00a0<\/span>able to distinguish between contraception and abortion as two very different\u00a0<\/span>issues. Some of these bishops, theologians, and canonists\u00a0[much more\u00a0<\/span><\/span>authoritative than Metr. Kallistos]<\/span>\u00a0now hold\u00a0[now? Why now?]\u00a0<\/span>that birth control\u00a0<\/span>methods may be used by married couples . . . Also, the Church could only\u00a0<\/span>accept the practice of birth control in marriage and in a way which would\u00a0<\/span>not preclude the birth of some children, since one of the purposes of\u00a0<\/span>marriage is the procreation of children.<\/span><\/p>\n There you have it. If Fr. Harakas, too, is wrong about the sociological and\u00a0moral\/doctrinal situation in the Orthodox Church vis-a-vis contraception,\u00a0then this needs to be demonstrated. Even as eminent of a theologian as John\u00a0Meyendorff has compromised with the traditional teaching on this score. I\u00a0think it smells to high heaven, and this is a major reason why I chose\u00a0Catholicism over Orthodoxy, when it came time for me to choose.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n I sent this message to a mutual acquaintance some time ago:\u00a0I read your interaction with Armstrong on the Catholic Convert\u00a0board. He\u2019s overboard with many of his claims.<\/span><\/p>\n I was challenged directly (in my own e-mail) in that last exchange, so I replied. You\u2019re welcome to reply to any of my \u201coverboard\u201d claims. You\u2019re entitled to\u00a0 your opinion; if you think my opinions are hogwash and nonsense, that\u2019s fine. But I am interested in actual responses, which I will be happy to publish on my website, in order to give the \u201cother side\u201d a hearing.<\/p>\n Did you read what he posted from Fr Hopko on his web site? It\u00a0strongly defended the sanctity of life and the unacceptability\u00a0of elective abortion. Because the Orthodox Church does not\u00a0see everything as a black and white matter of law does not\u00a0mean it has \u201cclearly departed from the unanimous early\u00a0Church teaching\u201d on the matter.<\/span><\/p>\n My best friend heard him discuss abortion rather shockingly and flippantly, in person. I have shown several Orthodox departures from traditional Christian teaching on abortion, from high-placed Orthodox. I realize the teaching overall is still quite solid, but these developments are alarming to me. I think they should be to you, too.<\/p>\n Well, that\u2019s hearsay at this point. To publicly slam someone from\u00a0hearsay is sorta like\u2026gossip, isn\u2019t it?<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not hearsay. It is a firsthand \u201cear witness\u201d report of Fr. Hopko speaking of his own beliefs (and representing his church\u2019s beliefs), from my best friend, John McAlpine, the most trustworthy person I know. If you want, I can have him write down what was said (I know he did at one time but I don\u2019t seem to have it in my files). My wife was also there, but her memory isn\u2019t nearly as good as my friend John\u2019s is. She corroborates the main outlines of the story when he recounts it.<\/p>\n For one thing I doubt seriously that we have unanimous testimony from the early\u00a0Church on special cases such as life of the mother.<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps not. I wonder, though, if you could find an instance of\u00a0any father who advocated direct killing of a preborn child in\u00a0order to save the life of the mother. I doubt it. Today, it is a\u00a0false dilemma. I was told personally by an abortionist that such\u00a0a scenario virtually never happens anymore.<\/p>\n We are to be guided by the Holy Spirit, not a decree from the legal\u00a0<\/span>authorities in all matters. The position of the Orthodox Church\u00a0<\/span>on abortion has not changed since its foundation with Christ\u00a0<\/span>and the Apostles.<\/span><\/p>\n Where does one find the \u201cofficial\u201d position? Is it binding on all\u00a0the different jurisdictions?<\/p>\n For a Roman Catholic apologist to charge the Orthodox Church\u00a0<\/span>with \u201c\u2026principles of theological liberalism, or even secular moral relativism, and is\u00a0<\/span>a flat-out compromise and betrayal of traditional Christian\u00a0<\/span>moral and ethical teaching,\u201d is laughable.<\/span><\/p>\n That statement was in a particular context. You are free to\u00a0critique anything I write with more than just \u201cthis is\u00a0nonsense\/laughable\u201d type statements. That would be a nice\u00a0change from the usual routine from people who disagree but\u00a0offer me no substance or alternatives to ponder.<\/p>\n This is especially true in light of the loopholes Rome\u2019s magisterium sometimes\u00a0finds in her \u201cunbreakable\u201d laws.<\/span><\/p>\n We can talk all day about \u201cRome\u201d but that is not the current\u00a0subject, which is Orthodoxy. One thing at a time.<\/p>\n He also wrote: <\/span><\/p>\n And there are hard historical facts such as\u00a0that in the five major schisms between east and west prior to\u00a01054, the east was in the wrong\u00a0every time, according to\u00a0their\u00a0own\u00a0later teaching. Rome was firm; Rome stayed the\u00a0course against the heretical winds and fire.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019m not sure what \u201cfive major schisms\u201d he\u2019s referring to\u00a0specifically, but the error of the heretic Honorius is enough to\u00a0make me choke on that one.<\/span><\/p>\n Arian schisms: 343-398 I have several papers on Honorius on my Papacy web page<\/a>; one a very\u00a0in-depth treatment by a scholar. He\u00a0may\u00a0have been a heretic, but he didn\u2019t We do not claim infallibility or the absence of error in New Rome, Old Rome, or\u00a0any other particular see, so this hardly undermines the Orthodox position.<\/span><\/p>\n The point (in context) was that Rome was orthodox all the way\u00a0through, while the East was all over the ballpark. That is fatal\u00a0especially to the false, quite un-ecumenical claims of anti-Catholic\u00a0brands of Orthodoxy to exclusive apostolic preeminence over\u00a0against Rome. They have to deal with these massive heretical\u00a0defections involving virtually the entire East on several\u00a0occasions (such as with the\u00a0Henoticon\u00a0and the Robber Council\u00a0of 449). We acknowledge the validity of Orthodox succession\u00a0and sacraments\/mysteries.<\/p>\n I would just add today: It seems that Dave thinks, since he is all but disarmed in\u00a0applying the Protestant\/Catholic paradigms against Orthodoxy,<\/span><\/p>\n My arguments against Orthodoxy are intended primarily against\u00a0the\u00a0anti-Catholic wing<\/em>\u00a0of it, which I find just as self-defeating\u00a0as anti-Catholic Protestantism. And they don\u2019t depend on\u00a0\u201cwestern\u201d paradigms, but on historical and ethical ones\u00a0accepted in common by east and west before the Schism of 1054.<\/p>\n that he has found a silver bullet in Christian ethics. That theory may suffice\u00a0to justify his own choices but, I doubt that it\u2019s going to carry\u00a0much weight with anyone else who has examined the facts without an agenda.<\/span><\/p>\n The facts on the history of contraception are clear, admitted\u00a0even by Catholic and Orthodox liberals who now dissent from\u00a0the historical teaching. One need not have any \u201cagenda\u201d to\u00a0point that out. You are welcome to prove otherwise. Divorce\u00a0and remarriage is almost as clear in the early Church<\/a>.<\/p>\n As a veteran of Protestant, Eastern Catholic, and Orthodox\u00a0apologetic endeavors, it doesn\u2019t with me.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, that\u2019s fine, but if all you are concerned about is your\u00a0own opinion, why post this in a public forum? I should hope that\u00a0here you would be willing to back up your contentions with\u00a0something other than baldly stated opinions. I don\u2019t mind\u00a0criticisms of my work at all. I just wish they would be\u00a0accompanied by some counter-argument, evidence, proofs,\u00a0demonstration, etc., much more often than they are.\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0what I often find severely irksome.<\/p>\n What I think on the contraception issue is probably irrelevant\u00a0<\/span>since I am sterile. But here\u2019s what I think anyway\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n Whether it\u2019s NFP or ABC, they both frustrate conception. One\u00a0<\/span>method uses timing based on the woman\u2019s hormonal system,\u00a0<\/span>another method alters the woman\u2019s hormonal system. Both\u00a0<\/span>have the same ends although the means differ slightly. What is\u00a0<\/span>bogus is the NFP propaganda about people who use ABC\u00a0<\/span>necessarily not being open to life. I know plenty of couples\u00a0<\/span>where, guess what, either the pill didn\u2019t work, or something\u00a0<\/span>else failed and they ended up pregnant. Of those I knew, none\u00a0<\/span>of them had an abortion. They were all open to life. Since the\u00a0<\/span>goal of using NFP is generally contraception, I don\u2019t see a big\u00a0<\/span>difference.<\/span><\/p>\n What Fr. Hopko was writing about is something some people\u00a0<\/span>don\u2019t understand\u2013it\u2019s a thing called mercy. Some folks\u00a0<\/span>understand law but not mercy. Externals over internals. On\u00a0<\/span>Fridays it\u2019s okay to pig out on a $30.00 lobster dinner, but don\u2019t\u00a0<\/span>dare eat a bite of bacon. It\u2019s better to go to lunch and have a\u00a0<\/span>big fried fish dinner than to sin by eating a humble bologna\u00a0<\/span>sandwich on rye.<\/span><\/p>\n Okay, back to mercy\u2026 Although RC fundamentalists tell me that\u00a0<\/span>the most important verse in Matthew is Matt 16:18,19, I\u00a0<\/span>believe the most important verse is Matthew 9:13. It\u2019s so\u00a0<\/span>important that Matthew quotes the Lord twice saying it exactly\u00a0<\/span>the same way (cf Mt 12:7). Learn what this means, \u201cI desire\u00a0<\/span>mercy, not sacrifice.\u201d That\u2019s what Eastern oikonomia<\/em> is all\u00a0<\/span>about. For instance, it would generally be a sin to smoke dope.<\/span><\/p>\n But, if someone had cancer and was in chemo, I think smoking\u00a0<\/span>or eating dope would be good for them if it helped with their\u00a0<\/span>nausea or other associated problems caused by chemo.\u00a0<\/span>Generally it would be sinful for people to be shooting up\u00a0<\/span>morphine. But, if they are in really bad pain, that\u2019s what the\u00a0<\/span>doctor might give them. The doctor is giving them a shot of\u00a0<\/span>mercy. Sometimes people have too hard of a load to bear.\u00a0<\/span>Other folks take a smoldering wick and snuff it out with their\u00a0<\/span>laws which they always put above mercy.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not mercy to sanction sin in the \u201cname\u201d of mercy (which is\u00a0no mercy at all if in fact it is leading someone on the road to\u00a0hell, and if it separates him from God). Bottom line is: is it a sin\u00a0or not? It\u2019s always hard to be righteous rather than a sinner. No\u00a0one argues with that.<\/p>\n Contraception is a mortal sin in Catholicism (as it used to be for\u00a0all\u00a0Christian groups before 1930). For you to deny that it is\u00a0such or to try to undermine it (by ethically equating\u00a0contraception and NFP) is an exercise in disobedience, pure and\u00a0simple. Whether you understand it fully or not is a different\u00a0matter. As a Catholic you are bound to accept Catholic infallible\u00a0teaching, of which this is one. There is plenty for you to read The \u201cmercy argument,\u201d wrongly used and applied, has been\u00a0used to justify everything from abortion to euthanasia. I am\u00a0shocked to see a Catholic using it as an argument against a\u00a0particular Catholic moral teaching.<\/p>\n If I am to be deemed a \u201clegalist\u201d and terribly unmerciful in\u00a0pointing this out, so be it. If Catholic liberal theologians,\u00a0bishops and priests had not been lax in their duty of teaching\u00a0these things, then I likely would not have the unpleasant and\u00a0unpopular task of pointing it out.<\/p>\n Well, I think the Council of Florence, and Pope Eugene IV (the\u00a0<\/span>foot fetishist) were heretical when they wrote in Cantante\u00a0<\/span>Domino\/Decree to the Copts that if one is circumcised he can in\u00a0<\/span>no way achieve salvation\u2013even if he doesn\u2019t mean anything\u00a0<\/span>salvific by it. There, I\u2019m going to Hell Annas or should I call you\u00a0<\/span>Caiaphus?<\/span><\/p>\n Call me whatever you like but you\u2019re not a \u201cCatholic\u201d if you\u00a0continue to maintain these beliefs. What keeps you here? You\u00a0defend the Orthodox over against Catholics at every turn; why\u00a0not go join them? Again, I am mystified at such blatant\u00a0inconsistencies in stated adherences when there is so clearly\u00a0an option available which \u201cfits\u201d one\u2019s beliefs \u2014 in this instance\u00a0even one which offers all the sacraments and apostolic\u00a0succession and much else of great and commendable worth. \u201cIf\u00a0it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck . . . \u201d<\/p>\n What do you want to do: stay in the Catholic Church but fight\u00a0her defenders like myself tooth and nail every time we point out\u00a0something where your beliefs and that of Mother Church do not\u00a0coincide? I just don\u2019t get it.<\/p>\n . . . If I defend the Orthodox at every turn it\u2019s because there are plenty\u00a0of Roman fundamentalists always attacking my Eastern brothers.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n If one looks at the article by William Klimon posted on your web site, one would see\u00a0the title: \u201cContraception: Early Church vs. Eastern Orthodoxy.\u201d Doesn\u2019t this strongly imply that\u00a0what is in question here is the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church?<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed. And to the extent that there has been a significant shift away from the traditional teaching, there is no inaccuracy in this, since the problem remains in Orthodoxy of who or what speaks authoritatively for all of it. I\u2019m merely going by the reports Orthodox themselves are making (e.g., Metr. Kallistos, Fr. Harakas).<\/p>\n And in this article it is said that certain individual Orthodox\u00a0clergy have shown an \u201calarming departure from Orthodox (and\u00a0previously universal) Christian Tradition. And again, \u201cClearly\u00a0Orthodoxy is compromising with the spirit of the age\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Taking your thesis at face value, if that is indeed the case, I\u2019m\u00a0left wondering how that impacts the Church and justifies Klimon\u2019s\u00a0polemic. My bet is that if I look around a little bit I can find in\u00a0one of your dialogs a comment that says, in effect, \u201cwhatever\u00a0any person says contrary to Catholic teaching is not Catholic\u00a0and has no bearing on the truth of the organization or her\u00a0heirarchy.\u201d I\u2019m glad we agree on that.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes we do. But you neglect to see that Catholicism has a way to\u00a0resolve\u00a0doctrinal and moral\/ethical conflicts. Orthodoxy either does not, or if it does, I have not been told what that is, and would be delighted\u00a0 to be so informed.<\/p>\n If these teachers have departed from Orthodox Tradition and\u00a0<\/span>embraced the spirit of the age, they are no longer Orthodox. I\u00a0<\/span>just wish you wouldn\u2019t compromise your \u201cproofs of Catholicism\u201d\u00a0<\/span>by putting up such obvious double-standard arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not a double standard at all, as I have explained in many papers, but based on the reasoning briefly recounted above. So it is your opinion that Fr. Hopko is no longer Orthodox? And Fr. Harakas and whomever else sanctions contraception? Other Orthodox friends of mine have said as much, but thus far, I don\u2019t know how they can authoritatively make such a judgment, given the divisions in Orthodoxy.<\/p>\n I wish you or someone else would answer my sincere probing questions on this matter. I\u2019ve been through this discussion at least 20 times now (I used to moderate my own list, and we had many Orthodox on it). All I ever get is this accusation of a double standard, which is entirely fallacious. I am interested in how these things are explained\u00a0within an Orthodox framework<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0with no reference to the Catholic Church (if you can restrain yourself for just one post :-).<\/p>\n Our position on the matter is clear. It\u2019s called\u00a0Humanae Vitae<\/em>.\u00a0What is it that makes yours clear, in your opinion? And on what basis do we make the determination that Fr. Hopko and other dissidents are \u201cno longer Orthodox\u201d?<\/p>\n William Klimon is Eastern Catholic, by the way, as are many of my friends. Strange if I have such a supposed prejudice against them, as [the person in purple] seems to assume. I happen to think there is a huge difference between expressing honest disagreements and being \u201canti\u201d some group or person. But there are different factions within Eastern Catholicism, just as there are within Western Catholicism. Some hold to the dogma of papal infallibility just as strongly as I do (and I contend that they are consistent).<\/p>\n Others think it is an expendable doctrine, and are, in my opinion, \u201cwannabe Orthodox.\u201d Some think eastern and western views on the\u00a0filioque\u00a0<\/em>question are able to be synthesized. Others think the west apostatized, etc. But this nonsense that I and others are \u201cprejudiced\u201d against Eastern Catholics or Orthodox simply because we hold various opinions and point out what a few obligatory dogmas are for\u00a0all\u00a0\u00a0Catholics, is a bunch of hogwash. I think it is rather more plausible (judging by behavior and words spoken) that if there is any \u201cprejudice\u201d at play here, it is more likely against western, Latin, Roman Catholicism. I\u2019ve seen this again and again firsthand.<\/p>\n So sure, I have lots of papers about Orthodoxy on my site (do you think Orthodox never write about Catholicism????!!!!), but they were mostly directed against\u00a0 the anti-Catholic wing of Orthodoxy. I also have things like a defense of\u00a0theosis\u00a0and attempts to achieve reconciliation on the matter of the\u00a0filioque<\/em>. I\u2019ve had an Orthodox priest as a guest in my home (and I\u2019ve been at his Bible study); I\u2019ve attended chrismations, and soon-to-be-Orthodox friends were present at my reception into the Catholic Church. I spoke to Frank Schaeffer on the phone (quite amiably) for 45 minutes on one occasion. I heard Frank and also Fr. Gillquist speak. One acquaintance of mine is one of the leading architects of traditional Orthodox churches in the country. He once did a slide show in my home.<\/p>\n I could go on and on, but this snide insinuation that I am somehow a \u201cRoman\u201d bigot against Eastern Catholics and Orthodox is demonstrably false and a damnable lie. If I am a bigot merely because I have some honest disagreements, then obviously those who honestly disagree with Western Catholic teachings must also be bigots and hatemongers or what-not, and that is absurd and ridiculous. I wish we could just discuss the issues without all this rancor, either blatant or just underneath the surface. Most of this is more applicable to [the person in purple<\/span>], not yourself, but this comes up again and again in Orthodox-Catholic discussions, so I am expressing my disgust in a general way.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Addendum<\/span><\/strong> (3-5-20)<\/p>\n It turns out that Metr. Kallistos Ware is quite the liberal \/ heterodox dissident, after all:<\/p>\n \u201cMet. Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual \u2018Marriage'\u201d<\/a> (Orthodox Net<\/em> blog, 6-11-18)<\/p>\n I\u2019m personally very saddened to learn of this. It doesn\u2019t, however, immediately invalidate his sociological statements on Eastern Orthodoxy, with regard to compromises on contraception. These have to be judged on their own merits.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Contraception: Early Church Teaching<\/a>(William Klimon) [1998]<\/p>\n Dialogue:\u00a0Contraception\u00a0vs. NFP: Crucial\u00a0Ethical Distinctions<\/a>\u00a0[2-16-01]<\/p>\n Biblical Evidence Against Contraception<\/a>\u00a0[5-3-06]<\/p>\n Dialogue: Contraception & Natural Family Planning (NFP)<\/a>\u00a0[5-16-06]<\/p>\n The Bible on\u00a0the Blessing of [Many] Children<\/a>\u00a0[3-9-09]<\/p>\n
\nChurch. There is no doubt as to\u00a0our\u00a0teaching. Contraception is, and always\u00a0has been, a mortal sin, according to \u2014 most notably \u2014 the papal encyclical\u00a0Humanae Vitae<\/em>\u00a0in 1968; also\u00a0Casti Connubii\u00a0<\/em>in 1930. These documents are\u00a0infallible in the ordinary magisterium, and thus binding upon all Catholics.\u00a0That remains true no matter how many lay Catholics and dissenting\u00a0theologians ignore the prohibition, which was universal among\u00a0all\u00a0Christians\u00a0before the Anglicans first broke down the Christian consensus in\u00a01930.\u00a0Catholicism is not a matter of majority vote, trendiness, and faddism, but\u00a0of magisterium, dogma, and apostolic Tradition.<\/p>\n
\nis correct: once it errs on a point he is no longer authoritative on that\u00a0point.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nbe found in a varying understanding of sex in the life of the Christian . .\u00a0. . .<\/span><\/p>\n
\nin the subsequent years as an expression of their continuing love for each\u00a0other, and for the deepening of their personal and marital unity, the<\/span>
\nOrthodoxy of contraception is affirmed.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nover St. John Chrysostom: 404-415
\nAcacian schism: 484-519
\nMonotheletism: 640-681
\nIconoclasm controversy: 726-787, 815-843<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\npublicly proclaim his heresy; absolutely not as any sort of magisterial or infallible\u00a0pronouncement. Popes can possibly be personal heretics. We just don\u2019t think they\u00a0will ever be allowed to make heresy binding on the faithful.<\/p>\n
\nout there if you really want to understand the Catholic rationale.<\/p>\n