www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Divorce and Contraception

Ooops! See previous page.

Paul

Paul:

Islam has a much better deal: you may have 4, all at the same time!

Amado

Dear Paul,

I don't know about in your home, but in mine, the husband (c'est moi) is the master.

In Christ,
Andrew

Actually, Latin Trad may be on to something.....

Sin may not ever be allowed by the Church. And so, that is why the Western Church refuses to issue divorces. However they do issue an annulment, saying that the marriage never existed, and grant even the most guilty of the partners in an annulled marriage the opportunity to (re)marry.

And we thought that the mysticism of the East was inscrutable!!!!

In Christ,
Andrew

Andrew writes that: "I don't know about in your home, but in mine, the husband (c'est moi) is the master."
Etymologically, Andrew is on firm ground. But what does that make his wife?
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Dear Paromer,Your post reminded me of the time in Seminary, when the Archbishop during Liturgics class, said in his Polish-Ukrainian accent,"And when you are preparing to serve Liturgy, you must refrain from having relations with your wife on the evening before". "Jimmy", the legendary class wise-guy, raised his hand,"Vladyko?" "Yes,Jimmy,"replied the Archbishop. "Vladyko, could I have relations with somebody else's wife?"That brough the house down. The Archbishop, being used to Jimmy, simply replied,"I might know that you would ask me such the stupid question."

Fr. Al,

LOL

God bless you,

Paul

Andrew,

Three funny guys with your post.

You are firmly grounded in reality!

Paul

In the Catholic Church, we condemn artificial contraception completely, yet in America, most Catholics use it.

The Orthodox Churches do not condemn it completely (but seem to discourage it?), but I wonder - does anyone know how much it is practiced with the Orthodox faithful? Is NFP common among practicing Orthodox? If there are no polls, is there some anecdotal evidence anyone can share?

I'm curious because in Catholic circles, we often note that as soon as Protestants open the door just a bit to artificial contraception, it wasn't long before it just was completely accepted and not even thought of as a moral problem.

In practice, is this the case in the Orthodox world?

Dear Alex,
In my earlier post I didn't mean that Archbishop O'Malley said that it was the individual priest who determines who can receive communion. I meant that the individual priest celebrating the Mass at which someone unworthy approached would have to be the one to deny the Eucharist. Would Archbishop O'Malley deny John Kerry if he wished to receive Communion at a Mass at which the Archbishop was presiding? Your guess is as good as mine.

Dear Neil,

I suppose some writers use "Primate" in a kind of general sense, the first bishop or president - I didn't know it was an actual Latin Church title.

There are also Latin Patriarchs (of Venice, the West Indies etc.) are there not?

Alex

Alex,

With the exception of the Bishop of Carthage, who was at one time styled Primate of Africa, the term was only used in the West.

The old (1917) Catholic Encyclopedia takes pains to point out that Primates in the West did not correspond to Patriarchs in the East, but to Exarchs. It also notes that there was virtually no uniformity in its usage and that it always related to privileges, not rights: e.g.,
"to convoke and preside over national councils, to crown the sovereign, to hear appeals from the metropolitan and episcopal courts," and the right of processional precedence.

It really was intended to serve as a unifier in the era of "national" churches, but gave way before the disappearance of those and the centralization of power in the West around Rome.

I checked on the sole Primate to be acknowledged at Vatican II; it was the Primate of Gran in Hungary. That same was true at Vatican I, btw. The "why", I don't know.

According to the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia:

Many years,

Neil

Alex,

Oh yes, they still exist. Other than the Pope as Patriarch of the West, there are still 4 Patriarchs in the Western Church.

There is only a single Major Latin Catholic Patriarch (other than the Patriarch of the West) - the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. His position is the only extant Latin Catholic Patriarchate of the Orient. His Patriarchal title is largely (but not entirely) ceremonial. (His exercise of authority is principally in his archepiscopal capacity.)

There are 3 Minor Latin Catholic Patriarchs of the West. For each of them, the title is honorific or ceremonial (although only 1 is actually styled ad honorem). The titles carry with them no jurisdictional authority; those who hold the seats derive that authority from their archepiscopal roles.

The Patriarchal title held by the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon was created in response to secular, rather than religious, need. King John asked for (and was granted) it as a condition of supplying troops to assist in fighting the Turks. He wanted a patriarchate for Portugal because Spain had one.

The position originally was attached to the King's chapel and was separate from the Archbishopric of Lisbon; the churches and other religious institutions of the city were divided between the two. That situation changed when Pope Benedict XIV merged the 2 positions. The patriarchal tiara resembles that of the Pope; however, in addition to it being silver, rather than gold, it also lacks the keys which adorn the papal tiara.

Frequently, people presume that the Venetian Patriarchate exists because the See traces its origins to Saint Mark. Actually, its history isn't much more noble than that of Lisbon. In the early centuries, it wasn't uncommon that the title "Patriarch" was loosely used to honor bishops who were thought of highly or who ruled Sees that had a particularly venerable history. In one northern Italian diocese, a bishop began to take the title seriously and decided that he and his jurisdiction should be subject to neither Rome nor Constantinople. So, for about 150 years, from the mid-6th century to around 700 AD, the Church was plagued by a schism in that region, which ultimately involved two dioceses. For some bizarre reason, even after the schism ended, Rome tolerated continued use of the title. Ultimately, the 2 dioceses came to be merged into the See of Udine, part of the Venetian Republic, and in 1750 (or thereabouts), Pope Benedict XIV declared the title changed to Patriarch of Venice.

The Patriarch ad honorem of the East Indies is also the Archbishop of Goa & Daman. The patriarchate was actually created late. Leo XIII established it around 1885, reportedly as a balance to that of the West Indies. That's a compelling reason, isn't it?. I think this was another instance of balancing Spanish and Portuguese sensitivities. There was speculation that when the See was next vacated, the title would not be granted to the successor archbishop and the patriarchate would be suppressed de facto, if not de jure. But, I seem to remember that the See changed hands relatively recently and that the title was again accorded - Charles could probably verify that.

The Patriarch ad honorem of the West Indies, the fourth and only other Minor Latin Catholic Patriarchate of the West, was erected in the Spanish hierarchy in the early 16th century, as a consequence of Columbus' discovery of America. It anticipated that the patriarch would reign over the Americas, which never happened. The position was ultimately joined with a Spanish military hierarchical post and never exercised any jurisdiction. Its been vacant since 1946 and it is generally considered to be suppressed, de facto, though - last I knew - not de jure.

Then, of course, there were the Minor Latin Catholic Patriarchates of the Orient. All have been formally suppressed - but were being granted as titular titles, not sure if that's still happening - I'd defer to Charles on the question. Ultimately, they were suppressed in recognition of the affrontery attached to the appointment of Latin Patriarchs to traditional Oriental Patriarchates - reminiscent of the period in which unity was synonymous with Latinization.

The Patriarch of Constantinople for the Latin Catholics was canonically erected in 1204. It actually had jurisdictional authority for a time, encompassing a couple dozen archdioceses and about 60 suffragn dioceses. After the Latins lost control of the city in 1261, the Patriarchs resided variously in Greece or at Rome and were allowed to be represented in Constantinople only by priests designated as patriarchal vicars. Four hundred years passed before permission was granted for a resident bishop as the Patriarch's vicar. For all practical purposes, the office was ultimately suppressed in 1772.

The Patriarch of Alexandria for the Latin Catholics was established in 1215, although the earliest documentation of an appointment to it is of a Patriarch Athanasius in 1219, of whom little else is known. The next recorded name is that of a Dominican named Giles, enthroned in 1310. After the mid-16th century, when Latins ceased to have any influence in the Byzantine Empire, it was reduced to titular status. I think that an Archbishop Juan Portugal de la Puebla, appointed 4 March 1771, who reposed on 16 October 1781, was the last hierarch documented as holding the title on a titular basis.

The Patriarch of Antioch for the Latin Catholics
was first held by a Bernard, appointed in 1100. Cristiano (Christian) Opizo, O.P., of thrice-blessed memory, was the last incumbent. The Dominicans believe, but can't confirm with certainty, that he was "Father Christian", a documented contemporary of St. Domenic. Christiano likely succeeded to the See in 1247, the year of his predecessor's repose. A contemporaneous account reports that when Antioch was overrun in 1268 by the Tartars, Patriarch Cristiano donned full pontifical vestiture and prostrated himself in prayer at the main altar of his cathedral, accompanied by 4 fellow Dominicans, also vested. They waited there for the invaders and were martyred while audibly professing their faith. After that date, Rome continued to appoint Patriarchs to the See, but none of them was able to take possession of it and, by the end of the 14th century, it was reduced to titular status.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Francis, regarding your questions below:
I have found the following information. It does not provide demographics, but is appears to show a united view between the various churches:

Orthodox Responses to Humanae Vitae
In light of development of the birth control pill and increasing social pressure to accept the practice of contraception, Paul VI reconvened a commission that had been initially organized by John XIII to address �Problems of Family, Population and Birth Rate.�[1] Three documents drawn up by this commission in 1966 were leaked to the press in 1967. One of these documents was the so-called �Majority Report� which advocated acceptance of the Pill and other contraceptives.

Although the majority of those on the commission advocated acceptance, the Pope had reserved the decision to himself. In 1968, he issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which landed like a bombshell. Reaction was immediate and vocal: many bishops denounced it, while some lauded the decision and felt it to be prophetic.[2]

Paul VI understood himself to be re-articulating the constant teaching of the Church in light of the theology of Vatican II. It is this document more than anything else which provides a paradigm for discussion of the issue of contraception today. Even when not explicitly invoked, every writer enters into dialogue with its teaching and works out his own views in continuity or contrast with its approach.

Despite the focus on the issue in the West, there was limited discussion within the Orthodox church�other struggles were perhaps more immediate. Orthodox response was spotty and erratic at best. Still, one gets the impression from reading various reports that many Orthodox were watching, waiting to see what the verdict might be.

In the Spring 1969 issue of the Eastern Churches Review, Francis Edgecumbe published an article entitled, �Orthodox Reactions to Humanae Vitae� which surveyed many of the various reactions of Orthodox Churches. Edgecumbe quotes the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras as stating: �I absolutely agree with the pope�Pope Paul VI could not have spoken otherwise. Holding the Gospel in his hand, he seeks to protect the morals as well as the interests and the existence of the nations�I am at the pope�s side, in all that he is doing and saying.�[3] The Romanian-American newspaper Solia-The Herald quoted him as saying that Humanae Vitae was �in line with the Bible� and that the Pope could not have been expected to take any other stand.[4] Edgecumbe comments that it might seem strange that he took this position, since he was widely regarded as a theological liberal.

The philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe wrote:

Thus Paul confirmed the only doctrine which had ever appeared as the teaching of the Church on these things; and in so doing incurred the execration of the world. But Athenagoras, the Ecumenical Patriarch, who has the primacy of the Orthodox Church, immediately spoke up and confirmed that this was the Christian teaching, the only possible Christian teaching.[5]

Others concurred. Metropolitan Chrysostom of Athens stated: �While I am by no means a lover of the papacy, I feel the need to commend the papal encyclical.�[6] Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad went on record as saying, �Every form of birth control is undesirable.�[7] Father Virgil Gheorghiu, a Romanian Orthodox priest living in Paris, said: �We Christians know that it is not the mouth of the pope that has spoken in forbidding the use of contraceptives. It is God who has spoken through the mouth of the pope�and through the mouth of the ecumenical patriarch.�[8]

In 1972, The Romanian Orthodox Solia-The Herald reported that �Bishop Yuhanon Mar Severios, head of the Syrian Orthodox Church in India, accepts in full the Roman Catholic stand on birth control.�[9] Dr. C. T. Eapen, described by Edgecumbe as �a leading theologian of the Syrian Orthodox Church of South India� is quoted as saying:

The pope deserves the support of all Christians for the stern stand he took on the birth control issue in his recent encyclical on the subject, in spite of the opposition both within and without the Roman Catholic Church. Only one could wish that the Lambeth Conference also could have found its way to support the pope�s lead. We are sure that the Eastern Orthodox Churches will give all moral support to the position taken by the pope.[10]

Some Orthodox, on the other hand, felt that Humanae Vitae was an outgrowth of an alien tradition, incompatible with the Orthodox ethos. Edgecumbe notes that in the West, and particularly in America, there has been more reluctance about Humanae Vitae.

He writes:

It is interesting, in this connection, to note the change that has taken place in the kind of teaching given to the Archbishop�s own flock. A few years ago the faithful of the Greek archdiocese were severely forbidden to employ contraceptives. The Greek archdiocese Year Book for 1957 contained the following statement (pp. 50-51): �If a husband and wife do not desire to have any children, they ought to abstain from all conjugal relations until they are able to have children, and then to come together again in sexual union, relying entirely and solely on God�s omniscience. The use of contraceptive devices for the prevention of childbirth is forbidden and condemned unreservedly by the Greek Orthodox Church.�[11]

A parallel change may be noted in the teaching given to the members of the Russian Metropolia (the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America). The Year Book for 1961 included a memorandum by Archbishop John (Shahovskoy) of San Francisco, in which it is stated:

The Church of Christ suggests a way, of which the Gospel revelation speaks quite clearly. Continence outside marriage, and continence in marriage itself. So says the word of God, and such is the understanding of the word by [the] best Christians of history�. The Orthodox Church, without doubt, categorically rejects interference with the mystery of childbirth.[12]

It was not long before articles began appearing in The Orthodox Church, the official paper of the Russian Metropolia, advocating restrained use of contraceptives.

The first extended theological response came in 1969 from Philip Sherrard. In an article entitled �Humanae Vitae: Notes on the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI�, published in Sobornost, Sherrard critiqued the use of natural law in Humanae Vitae, following closely the arguments of dissenting Roman Catholic theologians.[13]

Another article appeared in 1974 in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies by Chrysostom Zaphiris.[14] He argued, following John Rock, the Roman Catholic inventor of the birth control pill, that that the Pill, by mimicking the natural hormones of a woman�s body, was acting in accord with natural law. [15]

Many of the contemporary Orthodox discussions on contraception are built upon the arguments and views of these theologians. Their work has set the tone for much of the contemporary discussion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] For further background see Janet E. Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1991), 11ff.

[2] For a discussion of this see Janet Smith, �Pope Paul VI as Prophet: Have Humanae Vitae�s Predictions Come True?� Available online at: <www.udallas.edu/phildept/smith/publications.htm [udallas.edu]>.

[3] Katholiki, August 28, 1968, qtd. on p. 305 of Francis Edgecumbe, �Orthodox Reactions to Humanae Vitae� Eastern Churches Review 2:3 (1969): 305-308.

[4] Romanian Episcopate of America, �The Church in the World: News and Views� Solia�The Herald. 33:20 (Detroit: Sept. 29, 1968), 5.

[5] G. E. M. Anscombe, �Contraception and Chastity� in Janet Smith, ed. Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), 132. Originally published in pamphlet form by the Catholic Truth Society (London, 1975). Available online at: <www.uwichill.edu.bb/bnccde/ph19b/conchastity.html [uwichill.edu.bb]>.

[6] Katholiki, August 7, 1968, qtd. in Edgecumbe, 305.

[7] Ekklisia, November 1/15 1968, qtd. in Edgecumbe 305.

[8] La Figaro Litt�raire, August 19, 1968, qtd. in Edgecumbe 305.

[9] Solia�The Herald 37:9 (Feb. 1972): 9.

[10] The Star of the East, August 1968, 4-5, qtd. in Edgecumbe 307.

[11] Edgecumbe, 306.

[12] Ibid. The quote appears on p. 150 of the Year Book.

[13] Sobornost 5:8 (Winter-Spring 1969): 570-580.

[14] �The Morality of Contraception: An Eastern Orthodox Opinion� Journal of Ecumenical Studies 11:4 (Fall 1974): 677-691.

[15] Dr. John Rock lays out his argument in The Time Has Come: A Catholic Doctor�s Proposals to End the Battle over Birth Control (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963


Granted, this information appears old by today's standards, but it seems to point in a common direction The link is: http://home.uchicago.edu/~jas/stephanos/orthhv.html

Here is an answer from WWW.OCA.ORG [www.oca.org] regarding divorce and contraception:

19. What about such very specific issues as divorce and birth control and abortion? What do you have to say about such things?


These important issues all bear upon the appreciation of the family, and generally we can say without hesitation that the Orthodox understand the family to be willed by God as a created expression of His own uncreated life. Thus, in principle, the family must be preserved and glorified as something divinely and eternally valuable.

Regarding divorce, the Orthodox follow Christ in recognizing it as a tragedy and a lack of fulfillment of marriage as the reflection of divine love in the world. The Church teaches the uniqueness of marriage, if it will be perfect, and is opposed to divorce absolutely.

If, however, a marriage breaks down and collapses, the Orthodox Church does in fact allow a second marriage, without excommunication, that is, exclusion from Holy Communion, if there is repentance and a good chance that the new alliance can be Christian.

More than one marriage in any case, however, is frowned upon. It is not allowed to the clergy, and the service of second marriage for laymen is a special rite different from the sacrament as originally celebrated.

The control of the conception of a child by any means is also condemned by the Church if it means the lack of fulfillment in the family, the hatred of children, the fear of responsibility, the desire for sexual pleasure as purely fleshly, lustful satisfaction, etc.

Again, however, married people practicing birth control are not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives are not entirely unworthy. Here again, however, such a couple cannot pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God.

As to abortion, the Church very clearly and absolutely condemns it as an act of murder in every case. If a woman is with child, she must allow it to be born. In regard to all of the very difficult cases, such as a young girl being raped or a mother who is certain to die, the consensus of Orthodox opinion would be that a decision for abortion might possibly be made, but that it can in no way be easily justified as morally righteous, and that persons making such a decision must repent of it and count on the mercy of God. it must be very clear as well that abortion employed for human comfort or to stop what a contraceptive method failed to prevent, is strictly considered by the canon laws of the Church to be a crime equal to murder.


As you can see, the views regarding birth control seem (to me at least) to have slightly softened.

Michael (a sinner)