Contraception. Would A Little More Nuance Be Good?

[cooterhein]

I've been inactive for awhile. Lurking some for the past few days, though. I've seen some of the same things that I've always seen on this and other Catholic sites, and now there's some thoughts on the issue that I want to try and organize a little bit more.

One thing I see very consistently has to do with contraception, abortion, abortifacients, the death penalty....culture of life stuff. Humana Vitae stuff. It's all lumped together, and people say "Catholic teaching says this about all of them" without much in the way of differentiation.

My question in general: Isn't it a little bit necessary to nuance and qualify the contraception thing in ways that are different from, say, the abortion thing? Quite often, I see people group them together and say "All these things are completely unacceptable" and that is that. But it seems (to me) that there needs to be a little more nuance.

Here's why.

As you know (but maybe don't put in terms this blunt), the Catholic Church is in schism. Has been for quite some time. Probably will be for at least a few more centuries. Nevertheless, there are other bishops (apostolic succession and all) that exist. They claim the same teaching authority that your bishops claim. Some of the things they say are a little different from what your guys say, but while they're not your guys, don't their teachings mean a little bit more than nothing?

Contraception is one place where there's some differences. Eastern Orthodox bishops and priests have said some good things about Humana Vitae, but while they agree with Rome's teaching on abortion and abortifacient methods of contraception, they do permit some forms of contraception in certain situations under the guidance of spiritual counsel and with the consideration of many different circumstances- although abstinence is still encouraged pretty often and the emphasis on openness to life is still pretty comparable to what Catholics have when doing NFP. Not the same, but seriously- you guys are cut from the same cloth. You call these people Eastern Orthodox bishops right now, but there was a time when you would have referred to them as "some more Catholic bishops."

So this leads to a couple of questions from me. One- looking at the Eastern Orthodox and the mostly-Latin-Rite Catholics as a large group of bishops standing on either side of a schism, it seems that all of them have the ability to work within a certain range of actions on the matter of contraception where one group does one thing and the other takes a different option. Would you say the Orthodox stance is one that Catholic bishops could adopt just as easily as their "other lung" did if they simply chose to do so, or is it really completely unnecessary for you to nuance/qualify this issue in a way that's different from abortion/abortifacient issues?

And number two- when Catholic bishops and Orthodox bishops have identical teachings on most issues within a closely-related group but slightly different teachings on one or two issues within that same group, does this mean nothing to you? Or does it mean something that is worth mentioning from time to time?

Edited February 13, 2012 by cooterhein

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1329092184' post='2386096']As you know (but maybe don't put in terms this blunt), the Catholic Church is in schism. Has been for quite some time. Probably will be for at least a few more centuries. Nevertheless, there are other bishops (apostolic succession and all) that exist. They claim the same teaching authority that your bishops claim. Some of the things they say are a little different from what your guys say, but while they're not your guys, don't their teachings mean a little bit more than nothing?[/quote]

Since the Eastern Orthodox don't hold the belief of the primacy of the papacy, they don't hold to unity under the pope, and thus we can't take seriously what differences they say. They are bishops outside the infallible teaching protection of the Church.

[quote]Contraception is one place where there's some differences. Eastern Orthodox bishops and priests have said some good things about Humana Vitae, but while they agree with Rome's teaching on abortion and abortifacient methods of contraception, they do permit some forms of contraception in certain situations[/quote]

Can you please cite an example of this?


[quote]So this leads to a couple of questions from me. One- looking at the Eastern Orthodox and the mostly-Latin-Rite Catholics as a large group of bishops standing on either side of a schism, it seems that all of them have the ability to work within a certain range of actions on the matter of contraception where one group does one thing and the other takes a different option. Would you say the Orthodox stance is one that Catholic bishops could adopt just as easily as their "other lung" did if they simply chose to do so, or is it really completely unnecessary for you to nuance/qualify this issue in a way that's different from abortion/abortifacient issues?[/quote]

I don't think there can be two different understandings of contraception since it is a moral issue. If it was a discipline issue such as celibacy, then such differences can develop independent of each group. But for matters of faith and morals, they must match. So if an Eastern Orthodox bishop claims you can use contraception in certain circumstances, then he cannot be taken seriously since he is not speaking in collective union with the pope and bishops. It is his opinion, and not an infallible teaching.

[quote]And number two- when Catholic bishops and Orthodox bishops have identical teachings on most issues within a closely-related group but slightly different teachings on one or two issues within that same group, does this mean nothing to you? Or does it mean something that is worth mentioning from time to time?
[/quote]

Depends on the issue. If it is a discipline issue, then it's fine. If it's a faith issue such as the Filioque then it's a no-go. Same for moral issue, if they permit a different moral stance, it's a no-go since faith and morals cannot change, but merely be developed. Allowing contraception in some circumstances is not a development since your going from a complete mandate against it to allowing it in some situations.


If we could accept different takes on the faith and morals, there wouldn't be a schism.

[b]Edit[/b]: Does this answer your question?

Pax

Edited February 13, 2012 by eagle_eye222001

[Byzantine]

SOME EO hierarchs permit it. By no means all. And that's such a recent shift that apparently two different [i][u][b]editions[/b][/u][/i] of one of Metropolitan Kallistos' books disagree on whether [i]any [/i]hierarchs permit it.

[arfink]

Where Rome is concerned, I do not believe there will be any more nuance than 'You may not use contraceptives to intentionally remove from your sexual actions the possibility of conception.'

[Jaime]

[quote]As you know (but maybe don't put in terms this blunt), the Catholic Church is in schism. Has been for quite some time.[/quote]

It really isn't. There are some that are in schism with the Church (like protestants and perhaps you) . But the Church isn't in schism.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1329092184' post='2386096']My question in general: Isn't it a little bit necessary to nuance and qualify the contraception thing in ways that are different from, say, the abortion thing? Quite often, I see people group them together and say "All these things are completely unacceptable" and that is that. But it seems (to me) that there needs to be a little more nuance.[/quote]Cooterhein, this is an interesting set of questions on the Church and teaching which takes a more Orthodox point of view. If I may interject, I can try to answer a couple of your questions herein. First, I'm curious if you see a reason for a more nuanced approach to contraception? I can see how it might put less burden on the people, but the Catholic Church really has some good reasons for promoting their view of contraception. With the use of contraception outside of medical reasons, the coital act is reduced to pleasure and partial bonding. There cannot be a complete union between the man and woman without the openness to life possible in a non-contraceptive act. As soon as contraception is introduced, the act is no longer as meaningful and leads to further problems.

Here in America we're in a particularly sticky situation because we so heavily follow our desires for pleasure in intercourse. Sex cannot be reduced to pleasure and the bishops here see that very clearly. If we were to give into contraception, even a little bit, we risk destroying the very meaning of sex itself.

[quote]As you know (but maybe don't put in terms this blunt), the Catholic Church is in schism. Has been for quite some time. Probably will be for at least a few more centuries. Nevertheless, there are other bishops (apostolic succession and all) that exist. They claim the same teaching authority that your bishops claim. Some of the things they say are a little different from what your guys say, but while they're not your guys, don't their teachings mean a little bit more than nothing?[/quote]Quickly, while the Orthodox Churches are in schism from the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is not in schism from the Orthodox Church. I know some theologians recently have used this more poetic language, including Pope John Paul II, but that comes from a desire to unite the Churches. It's not meant a statement about the theological reality of the Church as a whole. Pope John Paul II has an encyclical in which he talks about the nature of the papacy is to bring about Christian unity, but this is an ancient belief that unity comes from the successors to the Apostles in union with Rome. St. Irenaeus of Lyons is one of the earliest theologians to spell this out. Therefore, we see a certain order and good in the Roman Pontiff. This has been clearly stated in the last couple councils and shows why the Holy Father has the authority to make declarations like [i]Humanae Vitae[/i], which really determines or verifies the Catholic stance on contraception, and it will not be going anywhere.

[quote]Contraception is one place where there's some differences. Eastern Orthodox bishops and priests have said some good things about Humana Vitae, but while they agree with Rome's teaching on abortion and abortifacient methods of contraception, they do permit some forms of contraception in certain situations under the guidance of spiritual counsel and with the consideration of many different circumstances- although abstinence is still encouraged pretty often and the emphasis on openness to life is still pretty comparable to what Catholics have when doing NFP. Not the same, but seriously- you guys are cut from the same cloth. You call these people Eastern Orthodox bishops right now, but there was a time when you would have referred to them as "some more Catholic bishops."

So this leads to a couple of questions from me. One- looking at the Eastern Orthodox and the mostly-Latin-Rite Catholics as a large group of bishops standing on either side of a schism, it seems that all of them have the ability to work within a certain range of actions on the matter of contraception where one group does one thing and the other takes a different option. Would you say the Orthodox stance is one that Catholic bishops could adopt just as easily as their "other lung" did if they simply chose to do so, or is it really completely unnecessary for you to nuance/qualify this issue in a way that's different from abortion/abortifacient issues?

And number two- when Catholic bishops and Orthodox bishops have identical teachings on most issues within a closely-related group but slightly different teachings on one or two issues within that same group, does this mean nothing to you? Or does it mean something that is worth mentioning from time to time?
[/quote]If you see my previous statement about the Churches, this should answer this question about why we don't look at the Eastern bishops for questions such as contraception. While the Orthodox practices are good and we can gain much from their theology, both as a whole and in some particulars, the pillar of orthodoxy has spoken on this issue (i.e. Pope Paul VI) and we owe that our ascent. There cannot be a more Catholic nuanced approach to contraception.

That said, I will also argue that the Catholic response is in fact the best response. Sure not many people follow the precept. But not many people follow the laws. That doesn't mean that we change them. Cardinal Wuerl was asked a question in an interview the other day about whether these people are in fact still Catholic even though they use contraception. His response is that there are Catholics even in jail. His point is that Catholics do not always do what is right, but they are still Catholics and they are called to something higher. The Church will always call us to something beyond this world.

Finally, I want to make it clear that contraceptive-free sexual intercourse is not merely an ideal that the Church holds out for the faithful. Sexuality must be entirely giving, but without the gift of life, we are holding something back. We thus make sexuality into something it is not. In fact, by reducing this free gift, we have made sexuality about base animal passions; we devoid the act of reason. Do not be fooled by our society, reason is not enhanced by contraception; rather, contraception removes our reason from the picture.

Edited February 13, 2012 by qfnol31

[Papist]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1329092184' post='2386096']
[color=#282828]the Catholic Church is in schism[/color]
[/quote]

Even if true, it would not be relevant. The Church has used and continues to use faith AND reason. The Church's teaching on matters of life stand the test of reason, not only faith.

[Amppax]

Tangent, wb Cooterhein!

[Aloysius]

The Catholic Church is not in schism. The fullness of Christ's complete and undivided Church subsists in the Catholic Church. To say that the Catholic Church is in schism is a contradiction in terms, because by definition the Catholic Church can never be in schism... those who are in schism are in schism FROM the Catholic Church, like the Eastern Orthodox Bishops you have mentioned.

[Ice_nine]

We're too backwards and ignant for nuance don't ya know?

[cooterhein]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329093715' post='2386110']
Since the Eastern Orthodox don't hold the belief of the primacy of the papacy, they don't hold to unity under the pope, and thus we can't take seriously what differences they say. They are bishops outside the infallible teaching protection of the Church.
[/quote]This is a really key point. And this seems relevant here.

[color=#333333][font=verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3]“Rome must not require more of a doctrine of the primacy from the East than was formulated and experienced in the first millennium. On July 25, 1976, when the Patriarch Athenagoras addressed the visiting Pope as the successor of Peter, the first in honor among us, and the presider over charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the declarations on the primacy of the first millennium. And Rome cannot ask for more. Reunion could occur if the East abandons its attacks on the Western development of the second millennium as being heretical and accepts the [/size][/font][/color][font=verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Catholic[/size][/font][color=#333333][font=verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3] Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form which it experienced in its own development. Conversely, reunion could occur if the West recognized the Eastern Church as orthodox and legitimate in the form in which it has maintained itself. ” Joseph Ratzinger. Theologische Prinzipienlehre: Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie (Munich: E. Wewel, 1982) 209[/size][/font][/color]

You seem to have a wrong-headed notion, something to the effect that the "other four" Sees of the Pentarchy came to have teaching authority only through their unity to Rome. You've provided a perfect example of a Roman Catholic who requires far more of the doctrine of the primacy than was formulated or experienced in the first millennium. It is wrong of you to do this. Your current Pope has stated that Rome cannot ask for more- but evidently, you feel that you can, and indeed must have your demands met before you can take the East seriously when it differs from the West. Also, take note of the words that Cardinal Ratzinger chose- he talks about the "development" of the Catholic Church, whereas the Eastern Church is "orthodox and legitimate in the form in which it has maintained itself."

It's also worth noting that you'd be willing to refer to the EO churches as "Churches," whereas you'd call anything else an "ecclesial assembly." This- along with that and that from the preceding paragraph- means your relationship and history with the East is different from what you have with any other group of Christians. Different in the sense that nuance is important. Different in the sense that your idea of Sacred Tradition is, in ways that are both foundational and modern, a shared tradition. Different in the sense that when I see Catholics treating their disagreements with the EO as if they were no different from disagreement with any other group of Christians, I know something is either missing, lacking, or wrong.

[quote]Can you please cite an example of this?[/quote][font=arial, sans-serif][size=3]If I understand your question correctly, you're looking for examples of Orthodox teaching to the effect that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used simply to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons. If that is what you are looking for, you should look no further than the statement on marriage and family from the 10th All-American Council of the OCA. You could also look at The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Church, Section XII., 3, which was approved by the 2000 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.[/size][/font]

[quote]I don't think there can be two different understandings of contraception since it is a moral issue.[/quote]Bishops are going to do what bishops want to do. They set their own boundaries and change them as necessary. If Catholic bishops from the West wanted to change their teaching on contraception, they could do so just as easily as Eastern bishops. They just have to call it "development" instead of "change."

[quote]Allowing contraception in some circumstances is not a development since your going from a complete mandate against it to allowing it in some situations.[/quote]That's exactly what a development is. "Development" is a term that's broad enough to cover anything about the modern Catholic Church that is different from what it used to be. Most people would call this "change over time," but that's what the Development defense is all about.

[quote]If we could accept different takes on the faith and morals, there wouldn't be a schism.[/quote]I hate to point out the obvious, but among the EO bishops that are in union with one another, there are three different takes on the contraception issue. One is basically NFP, another is even stricter than NFP, and the third one is the topic of this thread.

These bishops are not in schism with one another.

Evidently, these Eastern bishops can accept different takes on the contraception issue without being in schism with one another. And this is another equally obvious point- contraception had nothing to do with the Schism when it did happen.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1329108963' post='2386196']
Cooterhein, this is an interesting set of questions on the Church and teaching which takes a more Orthodox point of view. If I may interject, I can try to answer a couple of your questions herein. First, I'm curious if you see a reason for a more nuanced approach to contraception?[/quote]From a Catholic perspective? Because of the Eastern bishops. Your bishops have authority, and so do theirs. Their authority might not affect you directly at this time, but it makes for a unique relationship and a unique interaction with the differences that you have between you. From my own perspective- my POV on authority is much different from yours. My understanding is this: The authority that comes from relevant expertise is the only authority that ever means anything. So on the issue of contraception, I have a tendency to be more trusting of medical professionals than of bishops who claim a divine authority in the absence of relevant expertise. Your reply is about to give me reason to reference that in just a minute, too.

[quote]I can see how it might put less burden on the people, but the Catholic Church really has some good reasons for promoting their view of contraception. With the use of contraception outside of medical reasons, the coital act is reduced to pleasure and partial bonding.[/quote]Based on relevant expertise, this is false. Not just unsubstantiated, but false.

[quote]There cannot be a complete union between the man and woman without the openness to life possible in a non-contraceptive act. As soon as contraception is introduced, the act is no longer as meaningful and leads to further problems. [color=#282828]Here in America we're in a particularly sticky situation because we so heavily follow our desires for pleasure in intercourse. Sex cannot be reduced to pleasure and the bishops here see that very clearly. If we were to give into contraception, even a little bit, we risk destroying the very meaning of sex itself.[/color][/quote]Again, this is false. Based on the expertise of people whose careers are in fields most relevant to the issue, complete union between man and woman is quite possible when contraception is being used, and the meaning of sex is not at risk in the slightest.

What you're giving me here is something that I like to compare to "rugaru tales." You're probably wondering what a rugaru is, and I will tell you- it's a legendary monster-creature similar to a werewolf whose mythic origins lie in France. The legend was retold in the southern parts of the United States, particularly within the Cajun culture. According to one variation of the tale, Cajun children who didn't take Lent seriously would be hunted down and killed by a rugaru. But this would only happen if you broke Lent seven years in a row, so most of these kids weren't really looking over their shoulders. If I can make a parallel here, you're certainly free to take Lent as seriously as you want. Just don't make up any were-tales in the process, because if you insist on continuing to believe those kinds of things, I will have to give you a hard time about it. And again, you're certainly free to take Onanism just as seriously as you want. But don't make up tales.

Your stories of partial bonding and lack of meaning are similar to the rugaru tales in that they're entirely untrue. What sets your stories apart, however, is the comparative ease with which they are debunked. This is where relevant expertise comes in. Who is it that can either confirm or deny the veracity of these stories pertaining to "lack of meaning" and "incomplete union" or the decimation of "the very meaning of sex itself"? People with medical, psychological, and neurological expertise, of course.

[quote]Quickly, while the Orthodox Churches are in schism from the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is not in schism from the Orthodox Church. I know some theologians recently have used this more poetic language, including Pope John Paul II, but that comes from a desire to unite the Churches. It's not meant a statement about the theological reality of the Church as a whole.[/quote]This is the kind of thing I'm looking for. Your relationship with the East is far different, far more complex, and far messier than it is with any other group of Christians. So it's important that you be able to articulate some of the intricacies of it and the way in which it informs the nature of your disagreements with them, which will inevitable be different from your disagreements with Protestants. Knowing what your leaders say about Eastern authority, what they meant, what should be seen as "poetic language" and what should not- this is nuance. This is a good thing, because your unique relationship with the East necessitates it.

[quote]Pope John Paul II has an encyclical in which he talks about the nature of the papacy is to bring about Christian unity, but this is an ancient belief that unity comes from the successors to the Apostles in union with Rome. St. Irenaeus of Lyons is one of the earliest theologians to spell this out. Therefore, we see a certain order and good in the Roman Pontiff.[/quote]So when there's a Pentarchy made up of five Sees and the See of Rome separates itself from the other four, how does that fulfill the goal of bringing about Christian unity?

[quote][color=#282828]This has been clearly stated in the last couple councils and shows why the Holy Father has the authority to make declarations like [/color][i]Humanae Vitae[/i][color=#282828], which really determines or verifies the Catholic stance on contraception, and it will not be going anywhere.[/color][/quote]Eh. We'll see. I wonder how many of the Eastern Orthodox would have echoed that sentiment between the Schism and the 19th century. I guess that has something to do with the extent to which Onanism was taken seriously at different places and times throughout Catholic history, though.

[quote]If you see my previous statement about the Churches, this should answer this question about why we don't look at the Eastern bishops for questions such as contraception. While the Orthodox practices are good and we can gain much from their theology, both as a whole and in some particulars, the pillar of orthodoxy has spoken on this issue (i.e. Pope Paul VI) and we owe that our ascent. There cannot be a more Catholic nuanced approach to contraception.[/quote]I'm not suggesting that the West should change its teachings to match the East, any more than the East should change its teachings to match the West. I am suggesting that appeals to Sacred Tradition could acknowledge the existence of the East, though. I'm also suggesting that you could look there every once in awhile and say "Oh yeah, look at that, based on what they're doing it evidently is possible to maintain unity while permitting bishops to teach some different things on this matter." I'm suggesting that while you agree with your teachings and disagree with theirs, you interact with Eastern Orthodoxy appropriately- and this would entail some points of contrast with the way you would interact with Protestant disagreement.

As of right now, I think that's the extent of my suggestions.

[quote]That said, I will also argue that the Catholic response is in fact the best response. Sure not many people follow the precept. But not many people follow the laws. That doesn't mean that we change them.[/quote]I would expect you to argue for that, although I would not expect a very convincing argument. It's not you, though- it's the argument itself. In any event, you're right in saying not many people follow the laws. But then again, there are people who are specifically responsible for making sure lawbreakers do not go unpunished. In the wide world around us, those people are cops, judges, and wardens. When laws are broken and the responsible parties look the other way, people get upset.

But when Georgetown University elects (not by state mandate, but by choice- elects) to provide insurance coverage for contraception....one more clarification, if I may. Some Catholic schools, like Notre Dame, provide the coverage if there's a medical reason other than preventing pregnancy. But in the case of Georgetown, contraception coverage is provided for any reason. Back to what I was saying....when a school like Georgetown does this for about a decade (without being compelled to) and the bishop of that diocese decides to look the other way, that's a scandal. But when Catholic apologists go on to encourage Catholics everywhere to stop focusing on those kinds of things and focus more on Obama during the election year, that's a separate problem in and of itself. No word on whether or not you can start focusing on the bishops next year. I guess we'll find out.

In other words, the bishops have a responsibility. They are directly and exclusively responsible for making sure Catholic institutions toe the Catholic line. If/when they do not toe the line, it is the responsibility of the Catholic bishop to deal with the institutions within his diocese and either bring them into line or strip them of the Catholic title. But when these things don't happen over the course of a decade and Georgetown continues to bear the Catholic name, that's a problem. Or- on the other hand- perhaps it's more indicative of a trend toward a Catholic tolerance of contraception that goes beyond the general laity and more into the higher levels of the USCCB. Depends how you look at it, I guess.

It's too bad that the Catholic bishops never have to face an election year or worry about being deposed for not doing their jobs. If they did....well, if they did, maybe they wouldn't wait around until political expediency coincides with someone else's election year.

[HopefulBride]

I think you need to understand the definition of a Catholic, a Catholic School and the Catholic Church before you begin this discussion. Otherwise, it will be a never-ending trip round and round.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1330469824' post='2394232']
From a Catholic perspective? Because of the Eastern bishops. Your bishops have authority, and so do theirs. [/quote]

Wrong. While any bishop has the authority of being the shepherd of the souls entrusted to him, the infallible moral teaching authority is a charism that exists only for the bishops in union with the Pope. Any moral guidance issued outside this union is subject to error.

[Ice_nine]

cooterhein, i don't understand why you aren't EO, with you defending them all the time. It just seems strange.