Birth Control Methods

[rusmeister]

it’s not a non sequiur. they are the only ones who can answer the question. what they should or shouldn’t be allowing is what they must answer for, therefore they are the only ones who can answer.

it’s not a dodge. we have spoken quite at length about this here and in other threads concerning birth control. you said you can’t fathom how methods other than natural family planning are allowable. well, no offense, but who cares what you (or I, for that matter) can or cannot fathom? I simply stated where the answer lies, because the Church has put this charge in the hands of the bishops.

But the bishops do not have infinite license. They can only allow that which can actually be tolerated within out Tradition. They cannot give out economia for just a little theft, a little murder, or a little adultery, or for things that actively oppose Tradition.
What is called “birth control” has always been condemned, not only in our Tradition, but by the entire Christian world, at least until the Lambeth Conference in 1930. Everything that subverts the natural reproductive process is generally outside of a bishop’s prerogative to allow. And even when you do find that one-in-a-million case where it actually could be allowed, then everybody begins to clamor to also be considered exceptional. We don’t care about the one-in-a-millionth case. What we are complaining about is the 999,999 cases in which bishops wrongfully allow it.
Whatever the number, the vast majority of cases where economia is granted are now wrongfully granted, as I see it, and so now naturally the faithful think these things normal and acceptable, and not extreme or exceptional at all, because the bishops and priests extremely often don’t hold the line or set a real bar.
That goes for a lot more than just birth control, which Chesterton rightly said means that there shall be no birth, and no self-control. The cascade of divorces at my old parish were started when the priest allowed one divorce and remarriage ten years ago. I had been there almost ten years without incident, and when the one was allowed by a compassionate priest, it became a flood gate. Now his widow is remarried to someone else, the (now mostly grown-up) children of one now-broken family are looking at the child of another now-broken family as their “stepfather”, and there is no end to the breaking.
It seems there is nothing people are so willing to deceive themselves on as on sexual morality.
There is what the bishops ought to do, and what the bishops actually do, and we are complaining about that difference. That’s why your response feels like a dodge, even if it’s not intended to be. There are real issues the bishops are failing on, making some of us feel like we might as well be our own bishops (not that I am encouraging that!) as watch bishops authorize schism, war, or sexual immorality. And yes, I do know we should pray for them, as for our political leaders.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But the bishops do not have infinite license. They can only allow that which can actually be tolerated within out Tradition. They cannot give out economia for just a little theft, a little murder, or a little adultery, or for things that actively oppose Tradition.
What is called “birth control” has always been condemned, not only in our Tradition, but by the entire Christian world, at least until the Lambeth Conference in 1930. Everything that subverts the natural reproductive process is generally outside of a bishop’s prerogative to allow. And even when you do find that one-in-a-million case where it actually could be allowed, then everybody begins to clamor to also be considered exceptional. We don’t care about the one-in-a-millionth case. What we are complaining about is the 999,999 cases in which bishops wrongfully allow it.
Whatever the number, the vast majority of cases where economia is granted are now wrongfully granted, as I see it, and so now naturally the faithful think these things normal and acceptable, and not extreme or exceptional at all, because the bishops and priests extremely often don’t hold the line or set a real bar.
That goes for a lot more than just birth control, which Chesterton rightly said means that there shall be no birth, and no self-control. The cascade of divorces at my old parish were started when the priest allowed one divorce and remarriage ten years ago. I had been there almost ten years without incident, and when the one was allowed by a compassionate priest, it became a flood gate. Now his widow is remarried to someone else, the (now mostly grown-up) children of one now-broken family are looking at the child of another now-broken family as their “stepfather”, and there is no end to the breaking.
It seems there is nothing people are so willing to deceive themselves on as on sexual morality.
There is what the bishops ought to do, and what the bishops actually do, and we are complaining about that difference. That’s why your response feels like a dodge, even if it’s not intended to be. There are real issues the bishops are failing on, making some of us feel like we might as well be our own bishops (not that I am encouraging that!) as watch bishops authorize schism, war, or sexual immorality. And yes, I do know we should pray for them, as for our political leaders.

I pretty much agree with what you just said (I think I said as much over a few posts earlier in this thread).

but I do have to ask how you know the vast majority of economia granted are granted wrongfully? where is that actual number?

 

[rusmeister]

I pretty much agree with what you just said (I think I said as much over a few posts earlier in this thread).

but I do have to ask how you know the vast majority of economia granted are granted wrongfully? where is that actual number?

It’s not a claim of omniscience, nor is it based on any abstract scientific study, so asking for any exact number or statistic is disingenuous. It’s on pretty much the same basis I can say that a clear majority of the Orthodox faithful have smart phones. Would you care to challenge that reasonable assumption? Well, my conclusion is based on my experience and observation, amalgamated from what I have seen both personally and online. Could I be wrong? Possibly. Is it unreasonable? Absolutely not. The fruits I see are that huge numbers of churched Orthodox Christians think as the world thinks, and not as the Church teaches. I don’t need to conduct a scientific study to say that. Do they all seek guidance from their priest or bishop? Some doubtless do. Is the guidance good? I’d guess over half the time, maybe 4/5 is. Do they follow such guidance? Not nearly so many.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It’s not a claim of omniscience, nor is it based on any abstract scientific study, so asking for any exact number or statistic is disingenuous. It’s on pretty much the same basis I can say that a clear majority of the Orthodox faithful have smart phones. Would you care to challenge that reasonable assumption? Well, my conclusion is based on my experience and observation, amalgamated from what I have seen both personally and online. Could I be wrong? Possibly. Is it unreasonable? Absolutely not. The fruits I see are that huge numbers of churched Orthodox Christians think as the world thinks, and not as the Church teaches. I don’t need to conduct a scientific study to say that. Do they all seek guidance from their priest or bishop? Some doubtless do. Is the guidance good? I’d guess over half the time, maybe 4/5 is. Do they follow such guidance? Not nearly so many.

I don’t think it is reasonable. I would say that if 10% of bishops were too liberal in their application of economia, that number would be way too high and inappropriate for those bishops to be that liberal with their flock. that isn’t anywhere near being the vast majority (which would be far more than 51% of bishops) of archpastors and their flocks.

so, reasonable to say far too many? I think yes because even one bishop being extreme is far too many (and I can think of more than one and am sure you can). but to say the vast majority based on personal experience is just hyperbole.

 

[abacabb3]

it’s not a dodge. we have spoken quite at length about this here and in other threads concerning birth control. you said you can’t fathom how methods other than natural family planning are allowable. well, no offense, but who cares what you (or I, for that matter) can or cannot fathom? I simply stated where the answer lies, because the Church has put this charge in the hands of the bishops.

Father bless! With all due respect, there is a ball team in California named after this. We do not need a Bishop to tell us that from Orthodox tradition that abortion or premartial sex are wrong and that in 99.99999999999% of circumstances an economic contrivance cannot even be contemplated. We must have the capacity to speak of what our tradition is and what ideals we ought to fulfill.

And if our issue is over "Well how you do know about the 0.0000000001%" I think that this is a dodge to. Conversation is impossible when we get this ridiculous about things.

 

[abacabb3]

I don’t think it is reasonable. I would say that if 10% of bishops were too liberal in their application of economia, that number would be way too high and inappropriate for those bishops to be that liberal with their flock. that isn’t anywhere near being the vast majority (which would be far more than 51% of bishops) of archpastors and their flocks.

so, reasonable to say far too many? I think yes because even one bishop being extreme is far too many (and I can think of more than one and am sure you can). but to say the vast majority based on personal experience is just hyperbole.

Father, please forgive me, but for the sake of demonstrating a point, what do you mean far too many? What is many? And "far?" What does distance have to do with anything. And what is "personal experience?" How much of it is statistically significant and what is simply anecodtal? And how can any of us judge just how extensive someone else's personal experience is?

 

[rusmeister]

I don’t think it is reasonable. I would say that if 10% of bishops were too liberal in their application of economia, that number would be way too high and inappropriate for those bishops to be that liberal with their flock. that isn’t anywhere near being the vast majority (which would be far more than 51% of bishops) of archpastors and their flocks.

so, reasonable to say far too many? I think yes because even one bishop being extreme is far too many (and I can think of more than one and am sure you can). but to say the vast majority based on personal experience is just hyperbole.

I am saying that among Orthodox in my experience, the abnormal is becoming the norm. The Orthodox that I know are increasingly afraid even among themselves to admit that sexual sin is sin, and in my former parish, when I joined a group of men that wanted to discuss how to deal with that growing phenomenon in the Russian Church, enough of them turned out to be Stalinists or pro-war monarchists (some of whom were willing to threaten me for thinking Stalin and war bad) that I felt it necessary to leave. The very fact that there is any controversy at all among us around birth control is evidence of how lines and attitudes have shifted. I see Patriarchs and metropolitans that have gone bad, both in Russia and in the West. You can suggest ten percent, and that’s fine, but when they are among the most prominent ten percent, that weights the numbers a bit. True, they go wrong in different ways, but it’s still falling away.

My point is that these things, the abuses of economia and rejection of the traditional Church attitude in favor of modern ones is widespread, and not rare, not few and far between, but enough so that we are effectively afraid to speak the truth among ourselves. I can't remember hearing a homily about remaining faithful in marriage when it becomes difficult and rejecting divorce as a refusal to love or of a priest publicly addressing his flock on birth control. I am grateful for the occasional Synod statement rejecting the sexual anarchy of alphabet soup, but actual parishioners in parishes remain divided over such things, and some, privately or more openly denounce such synodal statements.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Father bless! With all due respect, there is a ball team in California named after this. We do not need a Bishop to tell us that from Orthodox tradition that abortion or premartial sex are wrong and that in 99.99999999999% of circumstances an economic contrivance cannot even be contemplated. We must have the capacity to speak of what our tradition is and what ideals we ought to fulfill.

And if our issue is over "Well how you do know about the 0.0000000001%" I think that this is a dodge to. Conversation is impossible when we get this ridiculous about things.

I never said that. I only said who, according to the Church, has been given the discernment to apply the canons of the Church concerning these things. I didn’t ever say you should not think for yourself or anything.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Father, please forgive me, but for the sake of demonstrating a point, what do you mean far too many? What is many? And "far?" What does distance have to do with anything. And what is "personal experience?" How much of it is statistically significant and what is simply anecodtal? And how can any of us judge just how extensive someone else's personal experience is?

don’t ask me, I am not the one who brought up “far too many.” I think one bishop being too liberal is far too many.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am saying that among Orthodox in my experience, the abnormal is becoming the norm. The Orthodox that I know are increasingly afraid even among themselves to admit that sexual sin is sin, and in my former parish, when I joined a group of men that wanted to discuss how to deal with that growing phenomenon in the Russian Church, enough of them turned out to be Stalinists or pro-war monarchists (some of whom were willing to threaten me for thinking Stalin and war bad) that I felt it necessary to leave. The very fact that there is any controversy at all among us around birth control is evidence of how lines and attitudes have shifted. I see Patriarchs and metropolitans that have gone bad, both in Russia and in the West. You can suggest ten percent, and that’s fine, but when they are among the most prominent ten percent, that weights the numbers a bit. True, they go wrong in different ways, but it’s still falling away.

My point is that these things, the abuses of economia and rejection of the traditional Church attitude in favor of modern ones is widespread, and not rare, not few and far between, but enough so that we are effectively afraid to speak the truth among ourselves. I can't remember hearing a homily about remaining faithful in marriage when it becomes difficult and rejecting divorce as a refusal to love or of a priest publicly addressing his flock on birth control. I am grateful for the occasional Synod statement rejecting the sexual anarchy of alphabet soup, but actual parishioners in parishes remain divided over such things, and some, privately or more openly denounce such synodal statements.

well, your experience doesn’t define the whole of the Church, so you shouldn’t make it sound as such. and widespread doesn’t necessarily mean the vast majority. it doesn’t minimize the problem, but it does no good to be hyperbolic in the other direction.

 

[rusmeister]

well, your experience doesn’t define the whole of the Church, so you shouldn’t make it sound as such. and widespread doesn’t necessarily mean the vast majority. it doesn’t minimize the problem, but it does no good to be hyperbolic in the other direction.

OK. I am describing what I have seen, and it appears to have proliferated throughout the West. But would I admit that what I have seen is all there is, or an aberration compared to the rest of the West? Not judging by what people have written here over the past twenty years. Everything points to a general tendency of falling away. Are there exceptions? Certainly. But I hear very little of parishes free of scandal and disunity.

 

[ArmyMatt]

OK. I am describing what I have seen, and it appears to have proliferated throughout the West. But would I admit that what I have seen is all there is, or an aberration compared to the rest of the West? Not judging by what people have written here over the past twenty years. Everything points to a general tendency of falling away. Are there exceptions? Certainly. But I hear very little of parishes free of scandal and disunity.

right, which means that too often would be a logical conclusion, but to say the vast majority based on your experience (which is a vast minority) is just foolish and needlessly over-the-top.