www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope approves use of condoms in fight against Aids

Not at all. the Church is in the mercy business. That mercy is extended in the confessional, not by redefing what used to be sin, now is no longer sin.

So, marriage is not a doctrinal issue?

What exactly is the principle of double effect?

Hopefully we can agree that we cannot do evil so that good may come of it. Not being an Eastern, I don't know if Easterns would affirm this principle, but latin rite catholics do.

There have been 4 conditions for the principle to be valid. These are:
1) The act must be good in itself.
2) The act must have the right intention. The person must desire the good effect, not the evil one.
3) The first effect must be good or at least = with the evil effect.
4) There must be a sufficiently proportional grave reason to justify the act.

The use of a condom fails in the first criteria alone. Contracepting is never a good simply because it is contrary to the mystery of the mutual indwelling of the Trinity in which love is freely given and love is freely received by each Person of the Trinity. Nuptial love is also a sign and image of the love of Christ bridegroom to Church, bride. As Christ gave himself to his spouse totally, freely, and fruitfully, so the marital act is contrary to the sign of Christ and Church when that fruitful aspect is frustrated.

I have never understood the logic of this to save my life. It and versions of it are always repeated no matter where you look or who you ask, some of the phrasing is exactly the same, some of it varies, but it's always the same assertion, and is never clarified or delineated further.

How is "love" impeded by a condom?

I am hoping for a specific answer to that question, rather than a new way of saying the original statement.

Your analogy of marriage to the perichoretic nature of the inner life of the Trinity as well as to the relationship between Christ and the Church is useful, but of course, has its limitations (as do all analogies that involve a comparison between the life of the Trinity and humanity). If one spouse becomes infected with an incurable STD, then an undesirable, harmful element enters into the marital act. Some people in these circumstances simply are unable to bear a lifetime of celibacy that it seems you would impose upon them.

The fruitful aspect of the marital aspect is also frustrated when either spouse is sterile or when the wife has gone through menopause. Furthermore, the fruitful aspect is frustrated when a couple engages (sometimes on a more or less permanent basis) in NFP. Of course, all sorts of verbal and mental gymnastics have been/will be used to dismiss this argument. I continue to find them unpersuasive. It is exactly because of these verbal/mental gymnastics that I find it very difficult to take the teachings of the Roman Church on this matter seriously.

People who live in glass houses should't throw stones. It seems to me that you sometimes denigrate the East when you seek to dismiss her theological traditions on the basis of those of the West.

.

In my hypothetical, the act is the prevention of a transmissible disease.


In my hypothetical, the intention is to preserve the marital bond between an infected and an uninfected spouse.


Preserves the bonds of marriage while preventing the infection of the spouse with a debilitating or fatal disease, vs. the possible prevention of conception through intercourse.


Without the action, there is the possibility of infection of the other spouse, or the breakup of the marriage, or the commission of adultery or fornication by one party or the other.

Slam dunk. No brainer. Besides, the matter ultimately is between the couple and their spiritual father.

Well, yes. Which is why I believe intent is more important than means, when it comes to contraception. A family that practices NFP with no intention of ever having children certainly evades the intention of Christian marriage more than a family that uses artificial means in an attempt to space or limit the size of their family.

So, Danman will admit that natural family planning is contrary to the Tradition of the Latin Church, at least?

The legitimization of natural family planning is clearly an innovation in Roman Catholic moral theology. But since its legitimization came from the Pope of Rome, I suppose it's OK--even though it represents a departure from nearly 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.

I never ceases to amaze me the directions some of the threads take. In any case, the Pope was talking about condom use by male homosexual prostitutes so it is hardly clear to me how this has anything to do with procreation unless there is some aspect of biology I do not understand.

If the discussion is really about the Latin Church's position on artificial birth control maybe the discussion can move to a new thread so that the title is relevant and the confusion or ignorance of the Pope's remarks is not so evident.

"The Pope Approves Use of Condoms in Fight Against AIDS"

The Pope made the statement in reference to one (very limited) situation. Forgive me for noting the Pope's logic has much broader implications than perhaps even he realized.

The Byzantine Orthodox position would probably be as follows:

1. God desires everyone to strive for perfection.
2. Perfection is not given to everyone, and not everyone is at the same level of spiritual development.
3. It is the role of the Church to teach about and exemplify the perfection to which all are called.
4. But the Church must also be cognizant of human weakness and do the best it can to encourage people to gain in spiritual maturity as the pathway to theosis.

With regard to the procreation of children, therefore:

1. In a perfect world, perfect people would not give any consideration to the timing, spacing or number of children they have, but would simply leave the whole matter up to God.

2. The world not being a perfect place, and all people not being perfect, those who do not or cannot bear all the children with whom God might bless them could rely upon natural methods to circumvent the conception of children, recognizing that this, too, is hamartia, a falling short of the mark. Through prayer and contemplation, they could and should be encouraged to move towards the objective of spiritual perfection, but the Church should not reprove them for making the choice that they did.

3. For some people, natural methods of contraception (why be euphemistic about it?) may not be practical or they may just not have the requisite level of spiritual maturity to employ it. As long as the method they use is not abortifactant, and as long as their objective is not to avoid having children at all for purely selfish reasons, it seems to me the matter remains--as Kyr Joseph wrote--between them and their spiritual father, because in their crowning they were made priests of their domestic church, to make serious, mature moral and spiritual decisions regarding their life together. The Church should encourage them to grow in faith, and to move beyond the methods they are using, but it should not reproach them for that, either. This especially should the case for people who simply cannot employ natural methods, and for whom the medical consequences of pregnancy may be exceptionally grave. The Eastern Churches have never castigated anyone for weaknesses of the flesh.

But is it the position of all Byzantine Orthodox? Is there one voice yet regarding this topic in Orthodoxy?

I'm learning, and most of the time I found nuances, not all jurisdictions agree, not all spiritual fathers agree.
If that is economia, then there should be a standard criteria you can adapt to differing situation. But, is the standard criteria itself standard already?