Real Bishops

Patrick Henry Reardon's "The Arius Factor" in the current issue of Touchstone (available in print!), came to mind this morning when I read about one of the saints commemorated today, August 31, in the calendars of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church: Paulinus, bishop of Trier.

Paulinus met Athanasius who was in exile in Trier for his support of orthodoxy in the mid-fourth century. At the synod of Arles (353) Paulinus not only defended Athanasius but strongly denounced Arianism. The emperor Constantius II apparently favored the more "reasonable" Arian doctrine and sought to silence orthodox critics. So he had Paulinus shipped off to Phrygia, where he died.

Paulinus was mentored by Maximinus, his predecessor as bishop of Trier. Maximinus had offered the exiled Athanasius refuge in 336, and the same to Paul, patriarch of Constantinople when the emperor booted him into exile.

I propose that no bishops be consecrated in any church unless they have studied and inwardly digested the full ecclesiastical history of the fourth century, beginning with the mass persecutions, then on to Nicaea, the Arian-inspired exiles and persecutions, and beyond. They should be rigorously quizzed on the names, the dates, the documents, the accounts of the martyrs, and then sign a form (in triplicate, of course!) saying they will faithfully walk in the steps of these orthodox bishops (and saints), and defend, to their last breath, that which was handed on from the apostles, and if not, then get a real job.

Comments

[labrialumn]

If I'm not mistaken, current Roman Catholic doctrine is that the bishops teaching together, teach the unaltered truth. So it would have been binding upon the Christians of the day to be Arians, and believe Arian doctrine.

In spite of Biblical disagreement with that doctrine.

[Gene Godbold]

But they were divided in their teaching...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>But they were divided in their teaching...<<<

Aside from which, the Church never really acted as mechanistically as Labrialumn implies. While the bishops have the charism of teaching the true faith, the ultimate responsibility for defending the true faith lies with the entire Body of Christ, and throughout Church history, when some, or even all of the bishops have gone astray (and even Bishops of Rome were known to do so), it was the people, often led by monastics, who rallied to preserve Holy Tradition.

Thus, Maximos the Confessor, in opposing the monothelite heresy, was told that all the bishops were in agreement, and he had excommunicated himself. No, he replied, it is they who have excommunicated themselves, for the Truth cannot be determined by a consensus, and as long as he, Maximos (a layman) upheld the truth, then the Church still survived, in the person of Maximos,

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

Jim Kushiner for Pope!

[Stuart Koehl]

Axios, axios, axios!

And, having been elected President by acclaimation on another thread, I promise to attend his installation in person, not sending the Vice President or Secretary of State in my place.

[Nick Milne]

Isn't that a dangerous intermingling of Church and State, though? Clearly you should act as though he doesn't exist from the moment the mitre hits his head.

[labrialumn]

Stuart, I don't doubt I do not yet understand the intricacies involved, but don't you prove my point?
Wasn't Maximos relying upon his "personal interpretation"? He certainly wasn't trusting the Magisterium.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Wasn't Maximos relying upon his "personal interpretation"? He certainly wasn't trusting the Magisterium."

Something's rumbling on the Richter scale. Is it a small tremor? Or is this a big one?

D'oh!

[GL]

TUAD,

This looks like one which you and I can set back and enjoy! ;-)

[Bill R]

Maximos the (Westminster) Confessor! ;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Wasn't Maximos relying upon his "personal interpretation"? He certainly wasn't trusting the Magisterium.<<<

"Magisterium" is a thing, not a person or persons. Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. Among Roman Catholics since the Reformation, the term has come informally to mean "the bishops", or "the Pope", or most recently, "the bishops united with the Pope". But to use the term in a seventh century Greek context is anachronistic. There was no "magisterium" as it is used today. There was Holy Tradition, which everyone knew and understood because it was absorbed organically by all through the catechesis of the liturgy. There were, of course, disputed areas wherein the Church had not yet made up its mind, and the issue of the nature of Christ was one of them, which is why we had to have three more Ecumenical Councils to settle the issue after Chalcedon.

In areas where the Tradition is firmly established, it is generally conceded that the bishops have the authority to teach, and the people have the obligation to defend. In those areas where the Tradition is not established, but issues are in dispute, bishops may offer opinion, but until their opinion is received by all--a messy process that can and did take decades--then each person is obliged to follow his conscience after prayerful discernment. I have cited in similar threads the statement of the Eastern Catholic catechetical handbook, "Shown to Be Holy: An Introduction to Eastern Christian Moral Thought":

******

It is precisely episodes such as this [the Arian controversy] that led to the teaching that there is no certain ground by which we can automatically discern God's guidance in situations which have not been the subect of revelation. We can seek His will paryerfully, consult the Church and its Tradition, and still be wrong. On the other hand, we may find ourselves opposed to the highest Church authority and be right. Thus, the monk St. Maximos the Confessor opposed the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople almost single-handedly during the sixth century monothelite controversy. He rejected his own Church's bishops, saying, "When I see the Church of Constantinople as it was formerly, then I will enter into communion with it without any exhortations of men. But while there are heretical temptations in her, and while heretics are her bishops, no word or deed will ever convince me to enter into communion with it" (Anastasius of Rome, "The Life of Our Holy Father, Maximos the Confessor"). Within a short time, the Church reversed itself, and accepted Maximos' teaching.

And so, after a person has deeply and seriously consulted the teaching ministry given to the Church, and reflected prayerfully on its directon as well as the leadings of his own heart, that person must follow his conscience, even if it runs contrary to the established understanding of the Church. We must be aware of our proneness to delusion, put our trust in God's hidden words, and then act. We may be wrong, and may even commit a transgression, but we will not sin, provided that our conclsions be founded on solid reflection and payerful maturity. We must know, however, that simply following whim or conveniene is not the same as following an informed conscience.

*****

I have also pointed out at various times that truth is self-authenticating and requires no extrinsic validation. Truth exists and speaks to the soul through the Holy Spirit, which is no respecter of persons. The Spirit may speak through the bishop, or it may speak through the layman. At the time of Athanasius and the Council of Nicaea, the highest authority was not wielded by the bishops, but rather by the confessors, those Christians, whether deacon, priest, bishop or layman, who had been tortured under the persecution and borne witness to his faith by his blood. At the time of Maximos, who became a confessor by virtue of his torture at the hands of the monothelite emperor, that same moral authority and witness resides with the monastics, who accepted the white martyrdom of acesis. It can be argued that at one time the man with the most influence within the Church was St. Symeon Stylites, a hermit who sat on top of a 60-foot pillar for more than thirty years. Bishops were known to make pilgrimages to seek his counsel. And the one time he came down, it was to see the Emperor himself, to castigate him for some error. Abashed, the Emperor took Symeon's advice and repented. Later still, in Russia, this kind of witness was borne by those called "Holy Fools", who either were or feigned insanity in order to point up the follies and foibles of the powerful, both secular and ecclesiastic. These men and women were deeply revered, and their persons were practically sacrosanct.

There is a critical scene in the opera Boris Godunov that illustrates this. A holy fool comes to Moscow, and is tormented by some small boys, who tease him and take his last kopek. Tsar Boris enters, and the fool approaches him. "The boys took my kopek" the tells the Tsar. "Have them killed, as you killed the tsarevich Dmitri". Guilt-stricken, Boris gives the fool a kopek, and says, "Pray for me, Father". But the fool replies, "One cannot pray for Tsar Herod. Bogorodice [the Theotokos] will not permit it". Apalled, Boris returns to his palace and begins his descent into madness and death.

The point then, is this: it is not the "magisterium" which is the supreme authority of the Church, but rather the total Tradition of the Church itself, of which those with magisterium--which is to say all members of the Church according to their gifts and stature--have an obligation to teach correctly and to defend against error, regardless of the origin of that error.

It does not have anything to do with personal interpretation, but understanding of and within the Tradition.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

Stuart, thank you for your helpful clarification.

There is something that you wrote which I shall excerpt so that you can help me understand the difference, if any, between what you wrote and what Francesca wrote:

"And so, after a person has deeply and seriously consulted the teaching ministry given to the Church, and reflected prayerfully on its directon as well as the leadings of his own heart, that person must follow his conscience, even if it runs contrary to the established understanding of the Church. We must be aware of our proneness to delusion, put our trust in God's hidden words, and then act. We may be wrong, and may even commit a transgression, but we will not sin, provided that our conclsions be founded on solid reflection and payerful maturity. We must know, however, that simply following whim or conveniene is not the same as following an informed conscience."

Francesca wrote the following over several comments on another thread:

"Possibly, but having studied primacy of conscience and the not-so-unbroken teachings of the Church, I'm confident that there are many areas in which we can disagree and still act in good conscience.

And only God determines whether a conscience is or is not correctly formed. And, yes, I am an admirer of Hans Kung.

I've studied Humanae Vitae, the Catechism, RCC teachings on infallibility, and the theology of conscience, all in some depth (as I'm sure many of us here have done,) and I don't believe that use of non-arbortifacient contraception is sinful.

I do not recall any contribution you made to past discussions on theology of conscience within the RCC on Mere Comments (it's quite possible that I may have missed some posts.) Back in April and May, iirc, I defended my stance in some detail and elaborated on: the differences between discerned and revealed truth, integrity to sincerely held belief, and evolving and changing teachings within the RCC. RCC teachings on theology of conscience are complex, nuanced, and have not been taught consistently throughout the Church's history. You are welcome to go back and review the arguments I made earlier."

Stuart, I'm seeing significant similarity and overlap between your post and Francesca's. Would you agree and support Francesca's understanding, more or less? Or is there a differentiated gap of significance between your explication of St. Maximos the Confessor and what Francesca is arguing?

As of now, I'm not seeing any gap.

[Bill R]

“It does not have anything to do with personal interpretation, but understanding of and within the Tradition.”

At the time of Maximos, however, there was no generally accepted understanding of the monothelite question within the Tradition. Therefore, as you also state:

“In those areas where the Tradition is not established, but issues are in dispute, bishops may offer opinion, but until their opinion is received by all--a messy process that can and did take decades--then each person is obliged to follow his conscience after prayerful discernment.”

I believe the Reformers did this, if one accepts McGrath’s thesis in “Iustitia Dei” that at the time of the Reformation there was no one generally accepted formulation of the doctrine of justification. Today I believe a majority of Catholic scholars would find Luther’s formulation an acceptable alternative for Catholics to hold (which is the conclusion of the first ECT statement).

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As of now, I'm not seeing any gap.<<<

Francesca's idea of "primacy of conscience" is not constarained by the notion of an overarching "Holy Tradition" within which conscience is iinformed. I noted that where Tradition is settled it generally is binding; at the very least, a person should presume that Tradition in such matters be given every benefit of the doubt, hence the threshold for overturning it is very high.

Second, the passage I cited notes our "proneness to delusion", which is anothr way of saying our mistaking the voice of our own desires for the voice of conscience. Bishop Kallistos as a boy was find of the BBC radio program "The Goon Show". He recounts this skit to make the point:

The phone rings. One a man picks it up, and says, loudly, into the receiver, "Hello, hello! Who is speaking, please?" The voice on the other end says, "It is you who are speaking". The man says, "Oh. I thought I recognized the voice". And he hangs up.

Kyr Kallistos points out that in order to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit dwelling within, in order to discern God's will, the first thing we have to do is be silent and listen. Many people refuse to do this, but instead take the attitude towards God, "When I want his opinion, I'll give it to him".

Francesca consistently errs in two ways: first, she confuses the voice of her own desires--or more properly, the voice of the Zeitgeist she has so utterly absorbed--for the voice of the Holy Spirit; second, she does not allow God the silence He requires in order to speak to her through the indwelling of the Spirit.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>At the time of Maximos, however, there was no generally accepted understanding of the monothelite question within the Tradition.<<<

This is very complex, because to answer you need to know the entire history of the Christological disputes, which would (and has) taken up many books. Two in particular are informative, both by John Meyendorff: "Christ in Eastern Christian Thought" and "Imperial Unity". Both point out that there was indeed a Christological consensus within the Church, one that was held almost from the beginning: that Christ was both true God and true man, at one and the same time, without admixture or confusion. The problem was describing this paradoxical and ineffable mystery adequately in words; i.e., to find a description that expressed the true doctrine. Underlying all these attempts was the apparently opposing beliefs in the impassibility of God and that "that which was not assumed cannot be saved". From Cyril of Alexandria, through the Council of Chalcedon, and down to the time of Patriarch Sergeius, Pope Honorius and the Emperor Heraclius, the problem was finding a way of expressing this that did not stress Christ's humanity at the expense of his divinity and vice versa.

The monoenergist and monothelite positions were both attempt to find an acceptable compromise between mono- (or mia-) physite and diphysite positions, one that would reconcile the apparent differences between Cyrillian and Chalcedonian Christology. For a time, monothelitism won universal acceptance, even within the Church of Rome (which is why Pope Honorius I was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, much to the chagrin of later infalliblists).

But the mere fact that for one moment the vast majority of Church leaders accepted a teaching did not automatically make that teaching consistent with Tradition. Maximos (and a handful of others, mostly monastics) rejected the teaching as being inconsistent with what Tradition had already revealed. And they stuck to their guns. And eventually, truth being self-authenticating, the Body of Christ came to realize this and rejected monothelitism. That is, the Tradition already encapsulated the truth, in an apophatic manner: it knew, no matter what else, that Christ did not and could not have but one "energy" or "will" and still be able to complete the sanctification of human nature. It took another Ecumenical Council to complete the synthesis, but even without that, Tradition, the Church's rule of faith, already laid out boundaries of what Christ was not.

>>>I believe the Reformers did this, if one accepts McGrath’s thesis in “Iustitia Dei” that at the time of the Reformation there was no one generally accepted formulation of the doctrine of justification.<<<

I would disagree on that. There was, in fact, a patristic consensus on justification, from which the Western Church had gradually migrated, and it was with this that Luther and the Reformers disagreed. But their formulation of justification by faith "alone" was itself inconsistent with the patristic Tradition, and it is significant that the Orthodox Church rejected both the Latin and the Protestant positions.

Regarding Iustitia Dei, one has to remember that to reach that agreement, both the Roman Cathoic and the Lutheran positions had to evolve and converge--a process that required some four centuries of interaction as well as exposure to other Traditions. This convergence, ironically, is not towards some via media between Catholics and Lutherans, but towards the first millennium patristic consensus. That this can be done within the framework of Luther's writings on justification is possible only because both sides are willing to interpret Luther in a way that makes this possible. Not everyone agreed with that interpretation, which is why the LCMS rejected the Agreed Statement (as did Roman Catholic traditionalist bodies such as the SSPX). It must be admitted that polemicists on both sides did much to exaggerate the differences between Catholics and Lutherans, but remember that Luther himself was one of those polemicists. Still, from the time of Trent onward, the Roman Catholic Church has constantly been reevaluating and reforming its position on justification, and it is likely that had Luther been familiar with, e.g., the understanding of justification at the time of Vatican II, he probably would not have rejected the Catholic Church (at least not on that ground, since justification was just one of his grievances).

McGrath errs (I say with fear and trembling) in viewing the issue of justification only through the prism of Western Christian theology, which is dominated by the Reformation controversies in the same manner that Eastern Christianity is dominated by the Great Schism. Eastern Christians often see Catholic-Protestant disputes as something of an intra-family argument, in which both sides share the same basic assumptions and vocabulary, a long-running argument in which both sides have agreed on the key questions, and disagree over the answers. We, on the other hand, look at all this, and think you may not be asking the right questions.

[James A. Altena]

"But the fool replies, "One cannot pray for Tsar Herod. Bogorodice [the Theotokos] will not permit it". Appalled, Boris returns to his palace and begins his descent into madness and death."

Actually Stuart, Boris begins his descent before meeting the Simpleton -- cf. the "Clock Scene" in Act II.

Excellent description of Francesca's problem, by the way.

"I have also pointed out at various times that truth is self-authenticating and requires no extrinsic validation."

I'm still awaiting your further explanation of this, which I requested on a previous thread. If you mean by this simply that truth is independent of any single person (other than God), I agree. But, as I pointed out, "authenticiation" or "validation" is an act performed by a person, not a proposition, and in that sense truth cannot be self-authenticating or self-validating.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"I have also pointed out at various times that truth is self-authenticating and requires no extrinsic validation."<<<

This means that truth does not need to be labeled as truth by any person or persons, or by any extrinsic authority, for that matter. Something is either true or it isn't. It is true regardless of whether anybody believes it to be true. It cannot be rendered false by the refusal of anyone or everyone to believe that it is true.

Conversely, something that is not true cannot be made true simply because any given person or persons declares it to be true.

Because of this, truth is its own criterion. And because truth is written into every human heart, human beings have an innate ability to determine the truth, if only they will listen. Thus. "truth will out" (eventually), because God is truth, and we, made in His image, are drawn to it.

[GL]

TUAD,

On the surface, I can see how you see similarity between Stuart's and Francesca's views, but they are actually quite different. When Stuart and I have debated contraception, he attacks not the binding nature of Tradition, but its interpretation by me and others. He makes a powerful argument that the Tradition in this instance is being improperly applied to conduct to which it does not apply, partly because the Fathers had misconceived notion of conception. I disagree, but his argument is not specious and it deserves pondering. Indeed, though I have never publicly acknowledged it before, I have pondered what he wrote and it has, in fact, shaped my views. Indeed, there are aspects of his position which I have come to accept. Francesca, on the other hand, declares a right to reject a Tradition which she disagrees without denying its applicability simply because she disagrees with it. If that is not her position, then I have greatly misunderstood her.

On the primacy of conscience argument, I have a very good friend who is also a very devout Catholic and very knowledgeable of his Church's teachings who has told me that he can be a good Catholic and disagree with specific teachings of his Church, but that he cannot teach others to reject those teachings. That is, he has not just a right, but a duty in his private life to follow his conscience but that his publicly attacking those teachings creates scandal and he may not do that. Despite what Francesca may think, I have read about and discussed these issues with serious, devout Catholics for many years, while she was still a child.

[David Gray]

>I have a very good friend who is also a very devout Catholic and very knowledgeable of his Church's teachings who has told me that he can be a good Catholic and disagree with specific teachings of his Church, but that he cannot teach others to reject those teachings.

So how does he teach his children?

[William Tighe]

"So how does he teach his children?"

I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.

[William Tighe]

"So how does he teach his children?"

I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.

[William Tighe]

"So how does he teach his children?"

I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.

[William Tighe]

"So how does he teach his children?"

I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.

[William Tighe]

"So how does he teach his children?"

I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.

[William Tighe]

"So how does he teach his children?"

I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.

[William Tighe]

"So how does he teach his children?"

I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.

[William Tighe]

"So how does he teach his children?"

I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

o "Francesca's idea of "primacy of conscience" is not constrained by the notion of an overarching "Holy Tradition" within which conscience is informed. I noted that where Tradition is settled it generally is binding; at the very least, a person should presume that Tradition in such matters be given every benefit of the doubt, hence the threshold for overturning it is very high.

Francesca consistently errs in two ways: first, she confuses the voice of her own desires--or more properly, the voice of the Zeitgeist she has so utterly absorbed--for the voice of the Holy Spirit; second, she does not allow God the silence He requires in order to speak to her through the indwelling of the Spirit." (Stuart)

o "Francesca, on the other hand, declares a right to reject a Tradition which she disagrees without denying its applicability simply because she disagrees with it. If that is not her position, then I have greatly misunderstood her."

Dear Stuart, James, and GL,

You may all be 100% correct and spot-on in your analysis of Francesca. I truly have no way of assessing your evaluations without going back and reading many longish threads and their exchanges.

But there's something here in your responses that causes me out of curiosity to want to shift the discussion. To a slightly more abstract argument.

Suppose we substitute another name for "Francesca" in the excerpt above! It could be any other name of a Catholic. And I stated the same observation: "As of now, I am not seeing any gap."

Would you still have responded the same way? I think this is a worthy line of inquiry. In other words, are you responding to Francesca because it's Francesca, and not responding to her arguments?

Sidebar: In my own walk I endeavor to separate the person from the position they espouse (not always succeeding unfortunately!). First, I think it's the correct approach. Second, I don't want the other person's reputation, character to unduly color or influence my evaluation of the argument or point they are making. Third, I am careful to critique their statement ONLY. So that they know that I am not critiquing them personally and not judging them as a person.

Returning to the more general (idealistic?) exhortation of separating the person from their position, for polite argument's sake, suppose I substitute Dr. William Tighe's name for Francesca's name above. Would you all have responded the same way? Maybe you would have, I don't know. But the greater likelihood is that you wouldn't have responded the same way.

My observation (in the particular case) is that Francesca carries historical baggage with you. [Which may be entirely justifiable for all I know]. And perhaps what you're responding to is this past memory of your impression of her which inhibits a fresh and unjaundiced view of her current arguments. Naturally, this does not seem like a fair, balanced, and objective view of her arguments, or to her.

In the general case I am thinking that it's very challenging to separate the person from the argument. So I want to give you all the benefit of the doubt in that regards.

It's just that I have a nagging suspicion that if Stuart were to voice Francesca's opinion, then he'd get a free pass because he was Stuart! But since it's Francesca, she doesn't! Even if the same arguments and words are posed! If so, then we truly are reacting to the person alone.

Obviously, there must be tons of social science literature on the phenomenon I'm describing. I wish I was familiar with it. "Halo effect"?

Returning to Stuart's observation of Francesca's two errors... I don't see how I could properly judge (or even want to judge!) whether Francesca has confused her own desires with that of the Holy Spirit's will for her. Nor could I evaluate whether she is sufficiently silent, still, and prayerful so that God could guide her.

And with GL's critique, I am thankfully unaware of whether Francesca indeed rejects Tradition without denying its applicability.

In closing, I make my post in humility, noting a general problem, as well as a personal failing of mine to separate the person from their position and giving their position a fresh and fair hearing, which I find vexing.

Pax in Christ alone.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

Note: I wrote my post in between tasks... so I did not know the inestimable William Tighe was posting as I was writing!

[James A. Altena]

TUAD,

I think I can speak for Stuart and GL as well as myself in saying that we speak to the argument and not to the person, and our reactions would not have been different. Per Stuart's explanation of truth as self-authenticating, Francesca is wrong because she is wrong, not because she is Francesca. And, for that matter, none of of us really knows Francesca. She is, for all intents and purposes, a cyberspace abstraction.

And where did you ever get the idea that Stuart gets, or would get, a free pass on this site for *anything*?

Especially from moi? ;-)

(Miss Piggy bat her eyelashes)

[labrialumn]

Stuart,
Your essay response is interesting. In it, you affirmed the Protestant principle (of sola Scriptura supra omne), and rejected the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning its teaching authority. If I understand correctly.

I would say, though, that I would prefer God's revealed words to His hidden ones, as it is much less likely to be self-deceived when the data are in the open that the interpretation can be challenged.

The monothelete question was obviously settled in Maximos' time, and he disagreed with it, and with the Church.

The LCMS rejected the Agreed Statement just because that is what they do. Not for actual theological reasons, but for suspicion, institutional PTSD, internal politics, etc.

Are not the Eastern Catholics part of the Roman Catholic Church and in submission to the bishop of Rome and his Petrine claims, and only differ in rite

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That is, he has not just a right, but a duty in his private life to follow his conscience but that his publicly attacking those teachings creates scandal and he may not do that. Despite what Francesca may think, I have read about and discussed these issues with serious, devout Catholics for many years, while she was still a child.<<<

It goes a little bit beyond that. In certain cases, one is in fact obliged to speak out if one thinks the Church is teaching falsehood (Maximos did not hold his tongue, except after they cut it out), or is acting contrary to the teachings of Christ.

The Church hierarchy, for its part, has a right and obligation to act in accordance with what it teaches and to exercise its disciplinary authority over its members. This is where Francesca parts company from me (and by extension, St. Maximos): I can speak out, as Maximos spoke out, against a perceived falsehood or wrong of the Church. The Church is under no obligation to listen to me, or to change its thinking or behavior on my account. It can, in fact, take a whole range of disciplinary actions against me, including formal excommunication (they no longer cut off hands or slice off tongues, or so I have heard).

Francesca thinks they have no such right--that she can say and do what she wants, and the Church has no authority in the matter. I believe it does, and so did St. Maximos. So, he was prepared, as I am prepared, to take the consequences of our actions. In his case, this meant torture, mutilation and exile. He never said the authorities had no right to do that to him. Instead, he bore witness through submission, and in the end was vindcated by the mind of the Church.

This, I think, is one of the main differences between Catholic and Orthodox dissidents today. There are in both a number of people who believe, e.g., that women can be ordained to the presbyterate (far fewer among the Orthodox, to be sure). But among Catholics who so think there seems to be a belief that they can demand that sort of change from the Church, and if the Church fails to act, they can take matters into their own hands--and still remain Catholics in good standing. An Orthodox with similar beliefs, on the other hand, usually doesn't claim that the Church "must" do either this or that. He may speak about it, but he is not going to place demands on the Church, let alone act outside of Church authority. Push comes to shove, if he feels strongly enough about it, he just leaves.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The monothelete question was obviously settled in Maximos' time, and he disagreed with it, and with the Church.<<<

Actually, AFTER his time. Maximos was arrested, tried for treason, tortured, mutilated and sent into exile. He was not vindicated formally until the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 681.

>>>The LCMS rejected the Agreed Statement just because that is what they do. Not for actual theological reasons, but for suspicion, institutional PTSD, internal politics, etc.<<<

Just as, e.g., the Cyrillians rejected any Christological formulation that diverged from that made by the great Alexandrian Father--it was what they did. They chose to misconstrue Chalcedon (albeit helped by blatantly diphysite interpreters of that Council who gave it a distinctly Nestorian tinge). Certainly we see a lot of reflexive opposition to compromise with other Traditions even when these do not affect substantive issues (look at how the Orthodox and the Catholics bicker), but that does not mean there are NO legitimate differences in interpretation.

>>>Are not the Eastern Catholics part of the Roman Catholic Church and in submission to the bishop of Rome and his Petrine claims, and only differ in rite<<<

Depends on who you ask. An ultramontanist or unreconstructed Uniate would say, "Of course!", but most of us would disagree with the statement on several points:

1. We are not "part of the Roman Catholic Church", but are members of distinct and autonomous particular Churches (ecclesiae sui juris), which have their own Traditions, their own hierarchies, and their own ecclesiastical doctrines and disciplines.

2. We are no in submission to the Bishop of Rome, but are in communion with him. When in the Divine Liturgy we ask God to provide us with "true communion in the Holy Spirit", we are speaking of an image of the relationship among the persons of the Holy Trinity. Is the Son greater than the Father? Is the Father greater than the Son and the Spirit? Is the Spirit inferior in any way to the Father and the Son? Or are the three not all equally God, one and indivisible? There is certainly hierarchy in the Trinity, but there is no subordination, let alone submission. Rather, it is perfect communion because each knows the other as well has himself, and each defers to the other according to his gifts. So it should be with the Church, that all defer to all in Christ.

[DGP]

It's just that I have a nagging suspicion that if Stuart were to voice Francesca's opinion, then he'd get a free pass because he was Stuart!

No. Were it helpful to call Mr. Koehl an ass whenever he writes like one, you might find him so labeled more frequently, but I imagine many of us have decided it's not helpful. More to the point, if silence betokens "a free pass," then I may have many recriminations to offer you, TUAD.

[GL]

Not to mention that we are all asses from time to time. There is kind of a quid pro quo: I won't call another poster an ass when he is being one if he doesn't call me an ass when I am. I think I get the better end of that unspoken bargain. ;-)

[James A. Altena]

Let's have GL and Bill R. hold a trial -- bring on the ass-sizes! :-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Let's have GL and Bill R. hold a trial -- bring on the ass-sizes! :-)<<<

Does this cassock make me look fat?

[GL]

So how does he teach his children?

I have not asked him, but based on what he has told me about his view of private conscience, I doubt he has shared his differences with the Church, in any, with them. Indeed, I cannot say with certainty that he does disagree with any of the Church's teachings. It has been several years ago, but if memory serves me, he was discussing well-known Catholics who were speaking out against official Church teaching and explaining to me that such men could be good Catholics and disagree with various of the Church's teachings, but they could not seek to persuade others to reject Church teaching and, in fact, their doing so would be grounds for excommunication.

[GL]

TUAD,

I have had some rather heated debates with Stuart. I have not given him any passes and he has returned the favor. ;-) The difference between Stuart and Francesca is that he has great knowledge, thinks logically and makes arguments that cohere. Even when I adamantly disagree with him and even think he is an ass (and I am sure he has thought me an ass at times -- no offense intended Stuart), his arguments have great substance. If Francesca in fact has the same bases for her differences over contraception, she has failed miserably to articulate it. Her posts come across as "I have read the documents and I know what they say, but I reject them because I have a right to in exercising my conscience." Stuart doesn't do that. He argues from (not against) Tradition. I generally disagree with his views on this topic, but there is a world of difference in the two approaches.

[GL]

And with GL's critique, I am thankfully unaware of whether Francesca indeed rejects Tradition without denying its applicability.

As are we all because she has failed to articulate why she rejects Tradition beyond an open ended reliance on her "primacy of conscience." Based on her past posts, however, it appears that she rejects Tradition whenever it clashes with the worldview of modern, secular liberalism.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It has been several years ago, but if memory serves me, he was discussing well-known Catholics who were speaking out against official Church teaching and explaining to me that such men could be good Catholics and disagree with various of the Church's teachings, but they could not seek to persuade others to reject Church teaching and, in fact, their doing so would be grounds for excommunication.<<<

This seems wishy-washy, a way to eat your cake and have it, too. I'll quote that eminent authority, myself, from my previous post:

>>>This, I think, is one of the main differences between Catholic and Orthodox dissidents today. There are in both a number of people who believe, e.g., that women can be ordained to the presbyterate (far fewer among the Orthodox, to be sure). But among Catholics who so think there seems to be a belief that they can demand that sort of change from the Church, and if the Church fails to act, they can take matters into their own hands--and still remain Catholics in good standing. An Orthodox with similar beliefs, on the other hand, usually doesn't claim that the Church "must" do either this or that. He may speak about it, but he is not going to place demands on the Church, let alone act outside of Church authority. Push comes to shove, if he feels strongly enough about it, he just leaves.<<<

[GL]

Stuart,

My friend's remarks were in reference to a specific Catholic "dignitary" (a well-known cleric) who was visiting campus and whose disputes with the teachings of the Church were well known. His remarks were in response to questions I raised about Catholics who openly dispute Church teaching and whether one could object to Church teaching and still be a good Catholic. I am not inclined to mention the name of the visitor, who would be known to all here. His objections were to our guest's *public* rejection of Church teaching and his teaching others to follow his views, not that out guest privately held such views or even shared them within "proper" channels. Indeed, he thought our guest had an obligation to do the latter, but thought the former was scandalous. I am disinclined to be more specific than that.

[DGP]

Not to mention that we are all asses from time to time. There is kind of a quid pro quo: I won't call another poster an ass when he is being one if he doesn't call me an ass when I am.

Let me be the first, if not the last, to point out that I, too, have benefited from the same social contract!

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

"Per Stuart's explanation of truth as self-authenticating, Francesca is wrong because she is wrong, not because she is Francesca." (James Altena)

"... she has failed to articulate why she rejects Tradition beyond an open ended reliance on her "primacy of conscience." Based on her past posts, however, it appears that she rejects Tradition whenever it clashes with the worldview of modern, secular liberalism." (GL)

I am heartened to learn that folks do want to respond to arguments, and not stereotyped people, and thereby attempt to treat the person making an argument as if they were a "cyberspace abstraction."

I wish I had thought of this when I wrote my post above. Alas, it came to me after a full day with family. The real separation between Stuart and Francesca is NOT the "principle" of primacy of a well-formed conscience. There is complete agreement there between them.

The real difference is in the application of the principle! I assume there are guidelines to the application of the "conscience" principle. What folks are arguing is that Francesca is being irresponsible in *HOW* she applies those guidelines. Whereas with Stuart, folks are assuming that Stuart is applying those guidelines with utmost care, cautiousness, and humility.

Now I have no basis with which to judge Francesca, moreover I'm glad that I don't have to judge Francesca (or anyone else) as to whether she is properly applying the "well-formed primacy of conscience" principle.

So when I informed Stuart that I am not seeing any gap between he and Francesca, IMHO the better response would be: "There is no difference between Francesca and I as far as the statement that there is a "well-formed primacy of conscience" principle within Catholicism. BUT!!! Where we differ is that there is a PROPER way to apply this principle and an IMPROPER way to apply this principle. In other words, the gap is in HOW we apply the principle. Based upon reading her arguments on previous threads, I think there is a significant chance that she's misapplying the principle based upon a strong influence from modern secular liberalism (per GL). Her citation of Hans Kung is evidence of this creeping liberalism into her worldview."

Now if Stuart were to write that... that would make sense to me. In short, he just has to write: "We agree on the principle; she just misapplies it badly. That's the gap TUAD."

Then I would have to decide whether to respond or not. I might write something like: "In that case I think the loving thing to do is to dialogue with Francesca about (1) discern whether the Church is actually in theological error or whether you are, and if she's still convicted, then (2) *HOW* to properly apply the "well-formed primacy of conscience principle", and (3) instructing her not to spread her individual convictions to others (unlike Luther). After that, the fellow Christian has done everything to love his/her neighbor as him/herself.

Specific eg. Francesca and her belief that in some cases non-abortifacient contraceptives are not sinful in a marital relationship. Do the three steps above prayerfully and lovingly with Francesca. Then trust God for the rest. Heated discussion in Step 1 can be expected. But after that, the discussion should calm down.

Anyways, that's how I'm processing things at the moment.

Pax in Christ alone.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

"I wish I had thought of this when I wrote my post above."

Should be changed to "I wish I had thought of the following when I wrote my post above."

The referent is confusing in the initial version.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Hypothetical, yet specific example.

Suppose both Stuart and Francesca believe that the use of non-abortifacient contraceptives for married couples is not a sin. Based on my limited knowledge of what GL claims, the RCC has declared this to be sin. Stuart advances the claim of a well-formed primacy of conscience principle outlining his reasons and furthermore, explicating his humility in prayer, thorough theological study, and utmost care and caution in doing so. Furthermore, he teaches this to no one else save his spouse.

Stuart articulates this on MereComments. Francesca then echoes that she has done the same, and since Stuart has already articulated her theological struggles and ultimate conviction that such contraceptives are not sinful for her and her spouse either, she merely jumps in with spiked high heels on Stuart's caboose-sized cassock and tags along happily in the musty wake.

Now it's entirely possible for folks to independently arrive at the same conclusions regarding their convictions via the same pathway. One of them may articulate it a little better, more cogently and more persuasive.

Therefore, if Stuart declares a principle and scrupulously applies it with utmost integrity, and Francesca declares that she has done exactly the same on both counts, then for logical consistency, either both should be given the benefit of the doubt, or neither.

[Stuart Koehl]

One can be right for the right reasons, and one can be right for the wrong reasons. But Francesca is in fact just wrong for the wrong reasons, and TUAD has misconstrued my position, which is not that contraceptives are licit, but rather that they are an areas subject to oikonomia. This may seem as contradictory as the Eastern Church's belief in the indissoluability of marriage while simultaneously allowing remarriage after divorce. But the contradiction exists only in the context of Western theological categories.

The Western way, particularly the Roman Catholic way, of dealing with issues of this sort, is to establish hard and fast rules and force people to conform. But, as Archbishop Joseph (Raya) of blessed memory wrote, the Eastern Church prefers to set an evangelical example and provide spiritual support for the faithful while being cognizant of human weakness.

Thus, with regard to contraception, the Eastern Church (or at least substantial elements of it) believes that the Christian ideal is to constantly be open to the formation of new life, while recognizing that not everyone is either physically, emotionally or spiritually capable of doing so. Then, the Church focuses on the reasons for spacing or limiting the number of children, recognizing that there are both valid and invalid reason for doing so within Christian marriage.

Having determined proper and improper reasons for controlling conception, the Church then focuses on the means by which this aim is achieved. Obviously, natural means are preferred, but these may not work for all couples, in which case those artificial means which do not result in the destruction of an unborn child are acceptable--as third best.

With marriage, the Church would encourage people to enter into only one sacramental marriage in a lifetime, but recognizing that it is better to marry than to burn, permits non-sacramental remarriage through oikonomia. With procreation, the Church would encourage people to place their full trust in God, but if that is not possible, would assist them in finding the way which is spiritually best for their unique circumstances.

But contraception is closer to fasting regulations than it is to marriage, in that there is the potential for spiritual growth over time. The neophyte to fasting is discouraged from trying to do too much at one time; so the neophyte to family planning might not be ready immediately to attain the Christian ideal. Thus, there could be a progression, from artificial means (unless these are adopted for physical reasons), to natural means, to a situation constantly open to life.

This is very different from what Francesca's belief, which posits no ideals whatsoever, and thus is not amenable to Tradition or to oikonomia, but rather is merely transgressive.

[DGP]

The Western way, particularly the Roman Catholic way, of dealing with issues of this sort, is to establish hard and fast rules and force people to conform.

Mr. Koehl, you were quite eager to accuse me of simplistic defense of the RCC, even when you misunderstood what I wrote. Now, however, you show yourself quite capable of simplistic caricatures, so long as they serve as suitable straw men for you. Were I taking TUAD's advice, I'd now call you an ass.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Were I taking TUAD's advice, I'd now call you an ass.<<<

Consider it done, my prickly fellow. So tell me--why doesn't the Latin Church allow remarriage, but must go through the sham of nullification? Given the breathtaking shallowness behind some of these judgments, I can only conclude (as did Archbishop Joseph) that this is merely backdoor oikonomia, an attempt to wrangle some sort of pastoral sensitivity from an excessively rigid application of doctrine.

[GL]

TUAD,

You were not, at least publicly, participating on MC when Stuart and I debated this more than a year ago. His post of Sep 2, 2007 4:19:24 PM fairly summarizes the position he articulated then. I am disinclined to once again summarize my own views other than to say that I am somewhere between the Roman Catholic view and the view articulated by Stuart. The Catholic approach seems too rigid to me, while the Easter view seems too flexible. Note, however, both views maintain that the use of contraceptives in normal situations (Eastern) or ever (Roman) is sinful. This contrasts to the innovative view of modern Protestantism that the use of contraceptives raises no moral issues whatsoever. This is an extremely modern and self-serving position.

As you should now be able to see, while I do not completely agree with Stuart's position (nor with the Roman Catholic position), there is a world of difference between his approach and those of most modern Protestants and Francesca. I do understand that it is hard for Protestants today who have known no other view to accept the position that the normative use of contraception is gravely sinful and is, in fact, part of the same category of sin as same-sex relationships and artificial reproduction, but this was, in fact, the position of all Christians until fairly recently. I hope you will be open to studying the matter.

Your brother in Christ,

GL

[Judy Warner]

TUAD, Stuart would never write "There is no difference between Francesca and I" because Stuart writes proper English.

[GL]

Okay, all, as Francesca pointed out, is too inclusive. I should have said "this was, in fact, the position of all Christians who were not in rebellion against the official position of their communion, denomination or sect until fairly recently."

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

My dear fellows,

My posts have created some confusion and this pains me since I always strive for clarity. The injection of the hypothetical example of contraceptives was to particularize the general case of primacy of conscience. I had no intention of the discussion to get sidetracked onto that topic.

Also, when Stuart mentioned primacy of conscience with respect to Maximos the Confessor, I naturally thought that was *his* principle as well when disagreeing with the Church's teaching. I had no idea about a "oikonomia". (I shall have to google the term).

So I request leniency as far as a misconstrual of Stuart's position on disagreeing with the Church. I honestly thought he was invoking the "well-formed primacy of conscience" principle of the Latin rite since that was what he spoke of in regards to Maximos.

But with the further discussion of "oikonomia", I do see, more or less, the nuanced separation between Stuart and Francesca when it comes to disagreeing with the Church's teachings. I honestly thought they were invoking the same principle! And if so, the only difference would have been the application or misapplication as the case may be.

I shall have to learn more about this "oikonomia" principle. Anyways, Francesca will not be able to ride on Stuart's coattails anymore.

And I am most glad for my comment stating that I did not see a difference at the time between Stuart's post and Francesca's post. I have learned much!

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Hi Stuart,

What is oikonomia? I googled the term and there's mishmash.

Observation: I think you're in a pretty darn good position as a Byzantine Catholic! There are times when you adopt RCC theology and then there are times when you adopt Eastern Orthodox theology. You get to straddle the fence between the two and then pick which one you think makes the most sense on a particular issue! Good deal!

[Francesca]

I just dipped into this thread and was amused to see my name taken in vain:-) TUAD, thank you for your defense of me and your appeal to reason and charity.

I see some parallels between past discussions here on primacy of conscience and more recent discussions on the "Blood, Gore, and Global Warming" thread, which touched on areas in which I have some background and a little confidence (e.g., I try to keep up with the latest issues of Geophysical Research Letters and I subscribe to a a number of pertinent scientific journals.) It was very easy to refute some of the assertions that were made on that thread. It also became abundantly clear to me that some posters were not interested in an honest exchange of ideas or in expanding their knowledge, mainly because their views were rooted in ideology or politics, rather than in science. Some were victims of prejudice. Others shamelessly and repeatedly resorted to insults when shown to be flat wrong on the facts! That discussion provided me with some very helpful context, understanding, and validation with respect to the threads relating to primacy of conscience, the tone of which often puzzled me.

In the arena of theology, I have much less confidence because I have less formal training (I focused mostly on pure and applied sciences at college,) but I did a great deal of sincere reading and reflection as a result of that discussion. I was quite open to learning more from other posters. Quite frankly, I was and am disappointed with the quality of response, which varied from weak and circular to unpleasant and personal.

As in the recent science-based discussions (on DDT and global warming,) the stronger my arguments, the nastier and more supercilious certain posters were likely to be and the more likely they were to misrepresent what I had said. Others simply responded in knee-jerk style because, as with the global warming discussions, they decided the "facts had a liberal bias" (thank you, Mr, Colbert:-)) and therefore needed to be dismissed rather than considered.

I'm too bored with the dishonesty shown here by Stuart to bother to defend myself against his continuing misreprepresentations and slander. All I can suggest is that those interested in the topic go back to the original (and lengthy) discussions of April/May and make up their own minds (GL, you'd need that context to understand my abbreviated comments on a recent thread in which we conversed.) I argued in the abstract and made no comment about my personal choices (despite some confident pronouncements about the same!:-).)

I'd strongly recommend "Confronting the Truth, Conscience in the Catholic Tradition" by Linda Hogan for an excellent treatment of the subject.

There are posters here, such as TUAD, DGP, and Michael, whom I truly respect. I find them charitable, intelligent, and, above all, honest. I wish, in particular, that DGP would post more often. It is because of them and some others like them that I still dip into this blog occasionally.

[GL]

Francesca,

I have a rather lengthy backlog of reading, but I will put "Confronting the Truth, Conscience in the Catholic Tradition" on that list. My problem with your use of primacy of conscience as a defense is not that I oppose the principle, but that you, unlike Stuart, have not articulated why you believe the Church and/or traditional Christian understanding of an issue in dispute is in error. I do not mean that you should tells us matters which are personal, but rather why you believe a particular understanding accepted as orthodox here is in error. Stuart has done that on numerous issues when he disagrees with particular stands taken here. For example, on women in the ministry, he has argued that Protestant pastors are not in the same position as Catholic or Orthodox priest administrating the sacraments so that some of the arguments made against women ministers in Protestant denominations from Church tradition and Scripture are inapplicable. His argument against the Roman Catholic position on contraception is another example of his argument from tradition why he does not accept that position. There are other issues in which he has done the same. He has not said that he rejects a teaching based on primacy of conscience without sharing the bases for his disagreement.

I agree with the notion that one may reject a teaching if he or she has examined the issue (any issue), has examined the basis for the teaching of his or her communion, denomination or sects on that matter, and believes in conscience that such official teaching is wrong. What bothers me is the bare citation of primacy of conscience without any effort to show why the rejected teaching is wrong. In Protestant circles one sees the same thing in a citation of Christian freedom or liberty. Protestants believe strongly what we have freedom in Christ. That freedom does not mean, however, that we can commit any type of immorality we want without consequences. We are not free, for example, to murder because we are in Christ. Throwing down the trump card of primacy of conscience or libertarian freedom without articulating why one thinks it applies leaves the impression that it is simply being used as a "get out of jail free" card.

There are times where I have adamantly disagreed with Stuart, but he has never once in any debate I have had with him thrown down such a get out of jail free card. He has, instead, articulated (sometimes in rather forceful and harsh terms I'll readily admit) why he disagrees. The result is that he has in some cases altered my thinking on an issue by bringing out new evidence I had not considered or by presenting evidence I had previously considered in a new light. He and I could be more gentle at times (and, speaking for myself, should be), but explaining *why* is the essence of debate and what makes participating in blogs of this sort beneficial. I know we disagree; I would like to know why. Your telling me that you disagree does nothing more than tell me that we disagree. Your telling me why we disagree educates me. You, in fact, did that on the global warming blog. I am still skeptical, but you did give me new sources to consider. You did it on the blog about radical Islam when you cited CAIR's position. Again, I am skeptical of the source, but you did offer one and argued from it.

On our recent discussion of contraception, you merely pulled out the "primacy of conscience" card and used it as a "get out of jail free" card. Again, I apologize for crossing a line I should not have crossed in our discussion. Your bare reliance on primacy of conscience combined with your flippant citation of the vile Monty Python ditty left me with the impression that you didn't take the issue seriously. YMMV doesn't tell me why YMMV. I do not care to reopen that particular debate, but I do think your approach showed a lack of engagement in a meaningful and, potentially, edifying discussion. A comparison of your approach and Stuart's was the issue TUAD raised and he implied that I was treating identical approaches by you and Stuart differently. My replies here have been merely to show that the different treatment was based on the differences in approaches. Your approach was as insulting to me (because I take the issue seriously, as I believe was obvious) as you found my response to you to be.

[Francesca]

>>Throwing down the trump card of primacy of conscience or libertarian freedom without articulating why one thinks it applies leaves the impression that it is simply being used as a "get out of jail free" card.<<

GL, I articulated my thoughts in great detail several months ago. I believe I was (at least I tried to be:-)) charitable and open-minded in those discussions. In response, I feel I was treated very poorly and that some of the responses I received reflected a surprising (given the confidence with which they were articulated!:-)) lack of awareness of the depth and nuance of RCC teachings on the subject, along with a total lack of charity. I must admit, that encounter has caused me to be dismissive and skeptical of some of the posters here and this has come through in some flip responses. I apologize if my reference to Monty Python upset you (I'll revisit that thread when I have time) and I thank you for your own apology. I can't recommend Hogan's book too highly. It is extremely thoughtful and comprehensive. If several people here would like to read it, I think it would make for a very interesting discussion. My views are pretty much in line with hers.

[DGP]

>>Consider it done, my prickly fellow. So tell me--why doesn't the Latin Church allow remarriage, but must go through the sham of nullification? Given the breathtaking shallowness behind some of these judgments, I can only conclude (as did Archbishop Joseph) that this is merely backdoor oikonomia, an attempt to wrangle some sort of pastoral sensitivity from an excessively rigid application of doctrine.<<

Fair enough -- both the "prickly," and the "backdoor oikonomia."

I did not object to Eastern approaches, but only to your gross caricature of the West, particularly the word "force." It's been a while since Roman Catholics sacked Byzantium. Or perhaps you're simply nostalgic for the peace and brotherhood of that old voluntary society, Czarist Russia, or angered that the Catholic dictatorship of Ireland continues to march through the centuries.
Force has more to do with who happens to have power, rather than ecclesiology.

One Eastern habit (to which I *do* object) is to wave either "oikonomia" or "westernization" to dismiss criticism directed at oneself, while torturously tracing each of one's interlocutor's errors to the heresy and apostasy alleged to underlie it. While I admire many of your posts, and of course your awesome employment of military and political history, I observe that on this particular score your "Eastern thought" is a source of irrtitation. You lose 40% of your IQ when comparing East and West. (IOW, you still have something to offer, but it's not nearly as reliable.) You wouldn't always tolerate such sloppy thinking for others here, so check yourself from time to time.

[GL]

GL, I articulated my thoughts in great detail several months ago. I believe I was (at least I tried to be:-)) charitable and open-minded in those discussions.

Could you please give me a reference? I will go back and read it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I did not object to Eastern approaches, but only to your gross caricature of the West, particularly the word "force."<<<

Since we're dealing here with a "brief" format, some abbreviation and simplification is unavoidable. "Force" is not the word, I suppose, since the Church can no longer remand people to the civil authorities, nor, in the absence of an estalished Church, is excommunication tantamount to disenfranchisement. A better description would be a spiritual "Hobson's Choice": either this, or nothing. Your marriage breaks down, your spouse commits adultery, so you divorce, but absent a nullification from a tribunal you have the choice of either marrying outside the Church and being denied the Eucharist forever; or remaining celibate for the rest of your life. That neither is spiritually beneficial seems to be sacrificed on the altar of maintaining a principle.

Same with contraception: if one feels the need to limit the number of children one has, one is left with the choice of either "natural" means (hardly natural, since it involves a lot of unnatural monitoring of human physiology) or nothing. The Church even seems unwilling to make concessions in the cases of women for whom natural means are not viable (even when conception would threaten their lives), or for those whose spouses are infected with HIV. For these people, once again, Hobson's choice: do it our way, or don't do it at all.

This forces people into "heroic" positions, and, as Archbishop Joseph pointed, you can't compel people to be heroic. Celibacy is by definition a personal charism, not to be confused with simple continance. That most people do not (or should not) have sex until they marry recognizes a temporary precondition; but for most people, marriage is their true charism, and as Paul himself realized, conjugal relations are an essential element of marriage from which neither party should abstain except by mutual consent, and then only for brief periods of prayer and contemplation, lest the zeal of one party lead to sin in the other.

The rest of your post is unhelpful, and ignores the thrust of the argument, which is how and when to apply "primacy of conscience" and the difference between my position and Francesca's. You could have engaged the argument, but instead choose to run off into an anti-Byzantine polemic, which I shall not engage, simply because everything you wrote was untrue.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What is oikonomia? I googled the term and there's mishmash.<<<

Oikonomia, from the Greek for "stewardship", is the obligation of cognizant Church authorities to modify or even waive the application of certain rules or norms in the interest of saving souls. It is a manifestation of the power to bind and loose which was granted to the Apostles and handed down to their successors. It differs from the Western concept of dispensatio, which is a more limited and legal concept. Properly understood, oikonomia is a reflection of the "personalism" inherent in Eastern pastoral theology--one size does not fit all.

Thus, the Church begins by setting the bar for believers very high: "If thou wouldst be perfect. . . " do this, this and this. But, recognizing that not everybody is ready for perfection, the Church does its best to determine where every person is on the road to perfection, and tries to find a way to encourage progress and spiritual growth. Sometimes this means loosening the rules. Remarriage is allowed under oikonomia because the Church recognizes that allowing a relaxation of the rule of indissoluability is preferable to the sins that might otherwise occur. On rare occasions (usually in a monastic setting), the rules might be made more stringent--such as requriing a particularly rigorous rule of prayer or abstinence from the Eucharist. It's really a matter to be handled by a bishop or a designated deputy, such as a priest or even a spiritual father.

Oikonomia can be abused, when the rules are relaxed not for spiritual but for material benefit. So, for instance, an adulterer might be allowed to remarry (remarriage is open only to the innocent party) as a quid pro quo for some favor, or because the person is a prominent member of the community. But such abuses are also found in the exercise of dispensatio in the Latin Church. In one good example, back before Vatican II, the Archbishop of New York was dispensed from celebrating Mass in his own cathedral because he was too busy. Since celebrating Mass in his cathedral is the most important thing a bishop does, this was an abuse. In a more mundane area, my Sicilian great-grandfather's hatred of priests grew out of their habit of dispensing each other from fasting from meat on Fridays--which didn't stop them from ragging on laymen who followed their example.

Oikonomia also differs from dispensatio in that it sets no precedents and is usually controversial. Thus, there is a canon from Trullo that says priests may not remarry, but bishops have on rare occasions allowed a priest to do so--usually because the man has young children who need a mother. Here, the bishop balances the discipline and good order of the Church against the need of the Church for a priest and the need of the children for a mother. In every case where this has occured (including several in the U.S.), there has been a storm of criticism against the bishop, but nobody questioned his right to make such a decision. Nor, the decision having been made, did anyone question whether the priest was still a priest.

On the other hand, oikonomia can become an established practice which eventually becomes part of the Tradition itself, as in the rules governing remarriage. Even here, oikonomia is still exercised since the decision on whether to allow remarriage rests with the bishop, who can restrict or go beyond the usual reasons for allowing it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Okay, all, as Francesca pointed out, is too inclusive. I should have said "this was, in fact, the position of all Christians who were not in rebellion against the official position of their communion, denomination or sect until fairly recently."<<<

I think that the key here is the "position", not the behavior. Use of contraceptives was quite common even in Catholic countries long before the 20th century. It's just that those who used them recognized that this was sinful, and understood themselves as sinners, while today people like Francesca see no moral implications at all in contraceptive use, hence there is no sin, but rather an inherent right--and also something of an obligation--to use them. That's a very significant change.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>.(e.g., I try to keep up with the latest issues of Geophysical Research Letters and I subscribe to a a number of pertinent scientific journals.)<<<

How truly good, you name-dropping little dilettante.

>>>(I focused mostly on pure and applied sciences at college,)<<<

Focus better. That's why they have little knobs on the microscopes.

>>>I'd strongly recommend "Confronting the Truth, Conscience in the Catholic Tradition" by Linda Hogan for an excellent treatment of the subject.<<<

Who, pray tell, is she, when she is up and dressed?

>>> I wish, in particular, that DGP would post more often. <<<

Though he cordially dislikes me, that doesn't mean he agrees with you at all.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> He and I could be more gentle at times (and, speaking for myself, should be), but explaining *why* is the essence of debate and what makes participating in blogs of this sort beneficial. <<<

Indeed, we should try to be gentle at all times, but at least neither of us has punched out the other, as St. Nicholas did to Arius at the Council of Nicaea. Nor have we mobilized flying squads of monks to beat up our opponents, as did St. Cyril of Alexandria at the Council of Ephesus. By the rough-and-tumble standards of the Patristic Era, we're pretty civilized. I've never once hurled an anathema, for instance. At least not indoors.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>GL, I articulated my thoughts in great detail several months ago. <<<

Your arguments, however, were tautological and solipsistic: I rely on primacy of conscience because my conscience tells me primacy of conscience trumps all.

[DGP]

>>Same with contraception: if one feels the need to limit the number of children one has, one is left with the choice of either "natural" means (hardly natural, since it involves a lot of unnatural monitoring of human physiology) or nothing.<<

This is a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the term "natural," as used here and elsewhere in Latin moral theology.

>>This forces people into "heroic" positions, and, as Archbishop Joseph pointed, you can't compel people to be heroic.<<

This is the heart of your argument here, and in several other threads. I'm not too sure about it. The Lord does frequently seem to set heroism as the benchmark of discipleship; hence, "what is impossible for man is possible for God," and many similar declarations.

Please note that criteria for discipleship are not necessarily the same as criteria for final Judgment. I don't know how the Lord will sort things out in the end. Perhaps we'll see some sort of divine oikonomia.

>>The rest of your post is unhelpful, and ignores the thrust of the argument, which is how and when to apply "primacy of conscience" and the difference between my position and Francesca's.<<

It may have been unhelpful, but the original post was about "real bishops," and my contribution applies about as indirectly as yours. Pot, kettle, black.

That being said, I'll attempt a closer review here, from my own perspective. "Primacy of conscience" is far too often misconstrued as "supremacy of conscience," when in fact it is more like "immediacy of conscience." Since most of us do not benefit from supernatural revelations of God's will in specific instances, we depend instead on our own wits, informed as they are by Scripture and Tradition, parents and prayer, heroes and ascesis. Since every human act is unique, the immediate choice is an exercise of conscience, mediating (one hopes) the formative contributions of the aforementioned.

One may be badly informed about the content of the divine Law, or badly informed about its practical application. In either case, one's conscience may be in error, and lead one to an objective sin even in subjectively "good conscience." Hence also the endless debates in the Latin Church about the responsibility of persons to re-form their consciences according to clarifications and corrections of the Church's moral instructions, and debates over the degrees of wiggle room available in various specified cases or circumstances.

There are plenty of ways in which this approach may be criticized; to defend it here would take me too far afield. It may, however, allow for further distinction between Francesca and Mr. Koehl. Though neither would probably be enthusiastic about this approach, I think it's fair to attempt to place them on a continuum between two extremes: (1) Ecclesiastical preaching/authority has little or no relevance to the formation of a particular judgment of conscience, and (2) Such preaching/authority virtually decides all particular judgments. I'd peg Mr. Koehl closer to (2) than Francesca, but certainly not at the extreme.

Mr. Koehl writes, "It's just that those who used them recognized that this was sinful, and understood themselves as sinners, while today people like Francesca see no moral implications at all in contraceptive use, hence there is no sin, but rather an inherent right--and also something of an obligation--to use them. That's a very significant change." I agree, and think it captures something of the disctinction between the two, although I still insist it's more a matter of degree than existence of moral implication.

>>You could have engaged the argument, but instead choose to run off into an anti-Byzantine polemic, which I shall not engage, simply because everything you wrote was untrue.<<

Actually, it was more of an anti-Koehl polemic -- occasioned, in my judgment, by your own instance of absurdity.

>> >>> I wish, in particular, that DGP would post more often. <<< Though he cordially dislikes me, that doesn't mean he agrees with you at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.<<

True, I don't necessarily agree with Francesca, though once again I don't think I'm the kind of person Mr. Koehl thinks I am. Among other more substantive matters, I am more inclined to think of him with "prickly" liking than cordial dislike.

[GL]

And here is precisely how Stuart's comments have helped my own view. It seemed to me that the Roman Catholic/Protestant division on the issue left one with two equally disagreeable choices: artificial contraception is always sinful and may not be used no matter how compelling the justification (RCC) or there is no moral issue at all involved in using contraception and we may use it with no more justification than that is what they want to do (20th century Protestantism). Our Lord on more than one occasion tempered the application of the Law with mercy. He never denied the Law, but He demanded that it not be used to lay on the backs of men burdens too heavy for them to bear. The Eastern position articulated by Stuart appears to give room for the application of mercy on this (and other) issue whereas the Catholic position does not. Yet, the Eastern position still recognizes that the moral law still applies (i.e., the normal use of contraception as sin) whereas the Protestant does not. Protestantism, in this instance, appears to lack the ability to hold simultaneously the competing demands of mercy and the Law and so rejected the Law altogether. Catholicism appears also to have the same problem accommodating these competing ideals, but rather than rejecting the Law, limited the means of exercising mercy (in a way that seems to me to lay burdens of the backs of married women whose lives would be at extreme risk were they to become pregnant which they cannot bear -- for one mistake in using NFP and they then face the issue of procuring an abortion to save their lives or in risking death to carry the pregnancy to term).

And this points to a broader issue that appeals to me about Eastern Christianity's approach to issues. When I first began reading about Eastern Christianity, I kept reading how they see all Western Christians as two sides of the same coin: Catholic and anti-Catholic (Protestant). DGP in May appeared to lend his support to this view in his exchange with me over Professor Beckwith's having to resign the presidency of the ETS in which he intimated that the only thing uniting Evangelicals was their rejection of Catholicism. In essence, he was saying their is Catholic and anti-Catholic; as to Western Christians, I believe Stuart would agree.

We see this on other issues. On Marian dogmas, Catholics insist that communion with Rome requires agreement that Mary is the Theotokos, was ever-virgin, was immaculately conceived and was assumed at the end of her life. Many Protestants reject all of these, almost reflexively in response to the Catholic view. Eastern Christians accept that she is the Theotokos and ever-virgin, but, while holding she was sinless, deny the immaculate conception, and while holding she was assumed, do make it a dogma. Again, Eastern Christians reject both the black of Protestantism and the white of Catholicism -- it is not either/or with them. So too with the Bishop of Rome. Catholics insist he is supreme and can infallibly declare ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Protestants reject his having any special office, even some rejecting his claim to hold the see of Peter and some even calling him the anti-Christ. Eastern Christians accept his claim to be heir to the see of Peter and accord him a primacy of honor, but deny his jurisdictional claims. Again, they reject the either/or approach of the West.

I do not always agree with Stuart and there are aspects of Eastern Christianity which trouble me, but on some issues Eastern Christians appear to be better able to hold two competing ideals in tension without insisting that one must give way to the other.

[GL]

Should have read "while holding she was assumed, do note make it a dogma."

[GL]

"Note" should be "not." (I'm watching three kids while typing.)

[DGP]

>>When I first began reading about Eastern Christianity, I kept reading how they see all Western Christians as two sides of the same coin: Catholic and anti-Catholic (Protestant). DGP in May appeared to lend his support to this view in his exchange with me over Professor Beckwith's having to resign the presidency of the ETS in which he intimated that the only thing uniting Evangelicals was their rejection of Catholicism. In essence, he was saying their is Catholic and anti-Catholic; as to Western Christians, I believe Stuart would agree.<<

For the record, I am not an Easterner, nor do I think of all Western Christians as Catholic or not. On the contrary, among other things, I have labored to preserve a distinction between those Christians who self-identify as "Protestant" and those (sometimes Evangelicals) who deny the label.

If I said the only thing uniting Evangelicals is their rejection of Catholicism, I retract it. There are other fundamentals of Christianity they hold with their fellow Christians, including others labeled Protestant and Catholic. Whether there is any attribute *distinctive* to Evangelicalism, or some peculiar collection of attributes, seems thoroughly unresolved to me, and still disconcerting.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This is a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the term "natural," as used here and elsewhere in Latin moral theology.<<<

I understand how the term is used in Latin theology; I reject that definition as being useless from both a moral and pastoral perspective, to say nothing of being obscurantist and counter-intuitive.

>>>This is the heart of your argument here, and in several other threads. I'm not too sure about it. The Lord does frequently seem to set heroism as the benchmark of discipleship; hence, "what is impossible for man is possible for God," and many similar declarations.

Please note that criteria for discipleship are not necessarily the same as criteria for final Judgment. I don't know how the Lord will sort things out in the end. Perhaps we'll see some sort of divine oikonomia.<<<

In the story of the rich young man, Christ says to him,"IF you would be perfect. . . ", but there is nothing in the exchange that indicates this can be construed as, "If you would follow me. . . " It is the young man who so construes it and goes away, but it is not at all clear that this is the choice with which Christ was presenting him. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had he stayed. Jesus, after all, had many rich friends, and did not demand that they give up their wealth. There seem to be two aspects pertaining to the young man in the story. First, that Christ perceived wealth as being an impediment, in the specific case of this one man, and therefore, prescribed a cure for his spiritual ailment. The other is that the rich man was actually a convenient stand-in for the nation of Israel. In the first century, it was commonly understood that the commandment to honor one's father required one to protect and expand the patrimony which was bequeathed to one. And, in the first century, that patrimony usually took the form of land. So the rich young man's wealth probably consisted of farms, houses and estates, which generated revenues. Telling him to sell off his inheritance and give it away would therefore require him to alienate his patrimony, and since that patrimony was land, the people hearing the words of Jesus would naturally consider that the patrimony of Israel was in fact the land. Viewed as an allegory of Israel, Jesus was saying that Israel should abandon the land promised it through God's covenant with Abraham, and instead inaugurate a new covenant through following Jesus. No wonder the man went away, distraught. No wonder the people hearing Jesus were so upset. This is pretty radical stuff.

Now, turning back to the issue at hand, Jesus asks us to try to attain perfection, not that we instantly become perfect. Jesus also tells us to forgive those who transgress seventy times seven, meaning that forgiveness is without measure. God's infinite mercy means there is always a second change, an opportunity to grow into the image and likeness.

That's beccause theosis is an ongoing process, not a state. The view of constantly growing into the image and likeness of God, of sharing in an increasingly greater portion of the divine nature, one that continues even beyond death, implies that we are not dealing with an either/or situation. The East places its emphasis on the process of salvation, and if one is not quite ready at this time, or if the gifts God has bestowed do not allow one particular path of salvation, there are other ways. It is the obligation and responsibility of the Church not only to hold up an evangelical example and maintain high standards, but also to help those who are not ready to live up to those standards to find a way to do so over time.

>>>It may have been unhelpful, but the original post was about "real bishops," and my contribution applies about as indirectly as yours. Pot, kettle, black.<<<

No argument from me over my bishops, I am still a Ruthenian, more so now that I have learned the primary command they give to the faithful has always been, "Pick up the soap".

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

>>> I am still a Ruthenian, more so now that I have learned the primary command they give to the faithful has always been, "Pick up the soap". <<<

Hmmmmmmmm, anecdotally, dear faithful Stuart, should you ever find yourself in a maximum security prison and you happen to drop the soap in the shower, you may not want to bend down to "pick up the soap."

;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Hmmmmmmmm, anecdotally, dear faithful Stuart, should you ever find yourself in a maximum security prison and you happen to drop the soap in the shower, you may not want to bend down to "pick up the soap."<<<

I don't need a maximum security prison, I have the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church. Which may be more like the mental hospital in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, with Bishop Andrew as Nurse Ratchett.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Stuart, thank you for the in-depth explanation of oikonomia. Extremely helpful.

On a shallow, surfacey level, it kinda reminds me of Anglicanism's "Via Media" principle.

The parallel in the NT that I see to EO's oikonomia is when Jesus heals on the Sabbath.

Not a sin. Greater good involved. Notwithstanding the fact that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath.

Pax.

[DGP]

>>In the story of the rich young man, Christ says to him,"IF you would be perfect. . . ", but there is nothing in the exchange that indicates this can be construed as, "If you would follow me. . . "<<

Yes, there is. Read to the end of the sentence, "...then come, follow me."

But if we play duelling Bible verses, we'll be here all day without making much progress. I do not deny that the Lord had rich and even criminal friends, such as Zacchaeus. I am instead claiming that the Lord's expectations for his disciples may often be quite radical, seemingly impossible heroisms notwithstanding. Nevertheless, I expect we agree extensively on the applicability of mercy and the protracted nature of theosis. Moreover, if your are correct in your descriptions of how oikonomia differs from Francesca's understanding of "primacy of conscience," then I expect there are more parallels between Eastern oikonomia and decent Western penitential practice than your characterizations admit.

>> >>>This is a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the term "natural," as used here and elsewhere in Latin moral theology.<<< I understand how the term is used in Latin theology; I reject that definition as being useless from both a moral and pastoral perspective, to say nothing of being obscurantist and counter-intuitive.<<

Now who's being prickly? :-)

[Francesca]

>>Could you please give me a reference? I will go back and read it.<<

GL, the discussion occurred on and off over a number of different threads and, irrc, over a longish time, so it would take me some time to do that, but I'll go back and look around when I have more time.

[Francesca]

>>>>.(e.g., I try to keep up with the latest issues of Geophysical Research Letters and I subscribe to a a number of pertinent scientific journals.)<<<

How truly good, you name-dropping little dilettante.<<

Not name-dropping -- fact citing. A couple of people have said they distrust my sources. GRL is about as reliable and cutting edge as one can get and a vast improvement on Newsmax or the Durkin documentary or wherever you get the faulty information you posted to the global warming thread. Anyhow, my point was that the climate science discussion proved the futility of arguing with a closed mind (so why am I talking to you?).

>>> I wish, in particular, that DGP would post more often. <<<

Though he cordially dislikes me, that doesn't mean he agrees with you at all.

Quite the opposite, in fact.<<

Well, duh, and I'm sure TUAD and Michael (two others whose posts I generally enjoy) disagree with me on many occasions too. I just find their posts food for thought.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I. "Oikonomia, from the Greek for "stewardship", is the obligation of cognizant Church authorities to modify or even waive the application of certain rules or norms in the interest of saving souls. It is a manifestation of the power to bind and loose which was granted to the Apostles and handed down to their successors. It differs from the Western concept of dispensatio, which is a more limited and legal concept. Properly understood, oikonomia is a reflection of the "personalism" inherent in Eastern pastoral theology--one size does not fit all." (Stuart)

II. When I first began reading about Eastern Christianity, I kept reading how they see all Western Christians as two sides of the same coin: Catholic and anti-Catholic (Protestant). DGP in May appeared to lend his support to this view in his exchange with me over Professor Beckwith's having to resign the presidency of the ETS in which he intimated that the only thing uniting Evangelicals was their rejection of Catholicism. In essence, he was saying their is Catholic and anti-Catholic; as to Western Christians, I believe Stuart would agree.

... Again, Eastern Christians reject both the black of Protestantism and the white of Catholicism -- it is not either/or with them.

I do not always agree with Stuart and there are aspects of Eastern Christianity which trouble me, but on some issues Eastern Christians appear to be better able to hold two competing ideals in tension without insisting that one must give way to the other." (GL)

III. "In the true Anglican Via Media, however, the extremes are identified by their opposition to the single, sure, revealed path of life defined by Biblical, Apostolic, and Patristic Christianity.

"We have more than once referred to the position of the Church of England as equally removed from Roman Catholicism and popular Protestantism, a position which has been somewhat unfairly termed the Via Media, since it was certainly not adopted as a compromise, but as a distinct principle. That principle was the retention of everything scriptural and primitive, and the rejection of anything medieval which was inconsistent with primitive Christianity or superstitious" ("Anglican Reformation," 282).

From: http://www.episcopalian.org/CCLEC/column9.htm

-------

Having reviewed Stuart's definition of Oikonomia, GL's appreciation of Eastern Christianity, and a description of "Via Media", I am now inclined to think that Oikonomia is a distinctly different theological concept than "Via Media". And that GL is more inclined in abstract principle towards "Via Media."

[DGP]

TUAD,

Please keep in mind that nailing down precise definitions of things like oikonomia can be a treacherous affair, and all the more so when attempting to find analogues, or the lack thereof, in other traditions. Great men have so attempted, thereby spawning the kinds of misunderstandings that lead to war and excommunication.

That's not to say one shouldn't discuss such things, but only that all participants should practice a diligent circumspection. It is so very, very hard to step out of one's own philosophical and theological frameworks to assess those of others, or even to assess one's own in others' terms.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Please keep in mind that nailing down precise definitions of things like oikonomia can be a treacherous affair...."

I agree. I agree with the exhortation to have a diligent circumspection.

But at least there's a reasonable chance to have a fruiful, mutually edifying discussion with the theological conservatives of various faiths here on this blog. In contrast, it is neigh impossible to have a logical, coherent reality-based discussion with a postmodern, theologically liberal revisionist.

They even decry the need for definitions themselves(!), saying that they are too confining and too limiting, too much in/out divisiveness, and lacking in inclusiveness, plurality, and diversity. The foundations of liberal Protestantism, liberal Catholicism, and emergent churches are built on this kind of epistemological quicksand. I call this P.C. B.S.

I'd rather take my chances of being rebuked for misunderstanding another touchstone Christian's theology, than to dialogue with a higher-criticism, theologically liberal "Christian" whose sole understanding of the Gospel is to do "social justice" and "social works".

[DGP]

But at least there's a reasonable chance to have a fruiful, mutually edifying discussion with the theological conservatives of various faiths here on this blog. In contrast, it is neigh impossible to have a logical, coherent reality-based discussion with a postmodern, theologically liberal revisionist.

Indeed, the only way to have an ecumenical conversation is to have it with people who believe what they say they believe. Anything else is simply mutual backpatting, "Arent't we wonderful for having a dialogue?"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"Arent't we wonderful for having a dialogue?"<<<

Indeed, we are. I learned my ecumenism at the feet of real giants, and the first thing they said was the dialogue of truth cannot take second seat to the dialogue of love--and vice versa. I also fully concurred with Fr. Robert Taft's statement that true ecumenical scholarship has to go beyond mere objectivity to the point of viewing the Tradition of the other as we would have the other see our Tradition. I may not always succeed, but I try to live up to that.

Which brings us back to this statement:

>>>But at least there's a reasonable chance to have a fruiful, mutually edifying discussion with the theological conservatives of various faiths here on this blog. In contrast, it is neigh impossible to have a logical, coherent reality-based discussion with a postmodern, theologically liberal revisionist.<<<

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are meaningless in this context. There are only people who adhere to a tradition, and those who do not.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I'm delighted to revise.

"But at least there's a reasonable chance to have a fruiful, mutually edifying discussion with the theological traditionalists of various faiths here on this blog. In contrast, it is neigh impossible to have a logical, coherent reality-based discussion with a postmodern, theological non-traditionalists."

Does that sound better and communicate better?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Does that sound better and communicate better?<<<

Other than that I prefer to distinguish between "tradition" and "traditionalism", it's fine.

[Bobby Winters]

Stuart,
Are "traditional-ists" like "islam-ists"? Just curious.;)

[Stuart Koehl]

Pretty much. Jaroslav Pelikan popularized (if he did not originate) the aprhorism that makes the distinction:

Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.

[johnMcG]

And what should be required of the laity?

I guess nothing, because as we know, we are all living as heroically as the early Christian laity; it's just the bishops who have gotten off track.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And what should be required of the laity?<<<

The process is iterative: when the bishops set low standards, the people live down to their expectations; and bishops are only as good as the communities from which they are drawn. It's a positive feedback loop in which every cycle is more exaggerated than the last.

[Susan Peterson]

Natural as in "natural law" means what is proper or appropriate for human beings, according to their proper or true nature. This assumes that we have a true nature which can be discerned through the haze of our fallen nature. Natural law refers to the natural moral law written on our consciences, the one St. Paul refers to in saying that the Corinthians and others knew they were doing wrong in their various immoral sexual practices. "Natural family planning" is natural only in that sense. It should not be associated with "natural foods," as in stone ground whole wheat flour vs white flour, or "natural fabrics" as in cotton vs rayon. I don't see how one can discuss this issue without distinguishing at least three senses of the word natural, or maybe four. First, the one mentioned above (which I don't find to be so difficult even if it isn't the common usage these days.) Second, natural as referring to our fallen nature. Third, natural as referring generally to biology, or Fourth, a subset of #3, to a lack of technology. Fifth there is a sense of natural which means that which comes easily or without struggle or difficulty.

Whether one has to use a device like a thermometer is therefore irrelevant to the discussion, since there is nothing wrong with technology per se, as it is only "unnatural" in sense #4. Likewise there is nothing wrong with charting or keeping records, as it is only "unnatural" in sense #5. On the other hand periodic abstinence is "unnatural" in sense #5, sense #3, and sense #2. But it isn't unnatural in sense #1 any time reason or obedience to God demand it.

The argument against contraception is that the Creator united sexual intercourse with the creation of new life, and established marriage for the purpose of begetting and raising children, and secondarily for the mutual support and community of life of the spouses. In this view, interposing a barrier so that semen cannot meet egg is clearly defying God's primary purpose for the sexual act. The incidental purposes of the sexual act are, in marriage, quite allright and even beneficial. But the primary purpose cannot be thwarted. Now, by nature (biological) some sexual acts cannot result in conception. The big question was...if there were a way to forsee which those were, would it be acceptable to limit one's use of the marital act, to only those times? Here the church answered a qualified yes. FOR SERIOUS REASONS a couple could without sin have the intention of avoiding more children for a time as long as they carried out that intention only by periodic abstinence. Even periodic abstinence was to be used only if there were truly serious reasons for avoiding more children; serious health problems in the mother, abject poverty. Contraception was seen as too intrinsically deformative of the normal sexual act to be resorted to even in those circumstances. And serious social problems and misuse of the technology by governments was seen as a consequence of the acceptance of the use of contraceptive devices or medications.

I rather think the social predictions can be said to have been justified.

Whether the traditional (and even biblical, as this is primarily what was meant by "sorcery") condemnation of the use of potions supports the condemnation of contraceptive devices and medications today can be questioned because those condemnations were made at a time when a clear line was not drawn between contraception and early abortion because of ignorance of the exact biological processes involved. I personally think that while one can draw a meaningful factual and even moral distinction between the two, the whole enterprise is basically of one piece and still deserves those condemnations.

But what happens when oikonomia is practiced on this issue? What the Lambeth conference agreed to back in 1930 was a form of oikonomia; in very serious circumstances under advice from their pastor or spiritual advisor, married couples might resort to contraception. Now, I doubt if many Anglicans/Episcopalians even know their church ever forbade contraception, and its use is regarded as a positive good and even a moral responsibility. Frankly, I think that despite official church teaching, a large number of RC priests in this country engaged in the same oikonomia in the confessional,to the point where people stopped asking, and stopped considering the use of contraception matter for confession. However, serious well informed devout Catholic couples, (perhaps 5% of Catholics of childbearing age?) who are consciously trying to live as Catholic Christians, do know that the use of contraceptives is forbidden to them. Similarly serious and devout Orthodox young couples now do not hear a unified voice telling them contraception is wrong. In the past 30 years or so, more and more Orthodox writers are reinterpreting the tradition, or understanding it differently. Some at least still say that the ideal would be to accept all the children God sends, and periodic abstinence would be second best, but ...if you can't do that, you aren't sinning, you aren't excluded from communion. It is more like whether you can keep the strictest fast... But human nature (sense#2) is such that we generally hear just the permission and sigh with relief, and go get fitted for that diaphragm. Sometimes an absolute rule is what it takes for us to rise to what we are capable of. And we can grow spiritually as we struggle to rise to obey a difficult absolute rule. And if we fail and have children? Almost all of the time, that is a really good thing. Most people cheat themseleves out of much joy by exercising too much prudence via contraception rather than welcoming more children. In fact, this can be true even of the use of periodic abstinence. But at least when using periodic abstinence, nature (sense #3 and even sense #2) is on the side of life.

Fredericka is generally following the teaching of a respectable subset of theological writers in her church. If she mixes in reasoning from false or modern premises (as some here say that she does; I haven't read the threads referred to, although I have heard her say in person that she sees nothing wrong with barrier contraception) in drawing her conclusions, she isn't unlike many philosophically untrained folks. If you agree with her conclusions I wouldn't fuss too much about her reasoning. Since she isn't Catholic, she isn't using these unsound arguments to justify disobeying, or teaching others to disobey a clear teaching of their church. Since she is so influencial, I personally would wish that she saw this issue differently. I think easy acceptance of barrier contraception is not to the benefit of Orthodoxy in the long run. (And I am hoping that despite it I will have a goodly number of Orthodox grandchildren who will be affected by what happens in Orthodoxy in the long run....) [I am Catholic, one of my sons is Orthodox]
Susan Peterson

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Dear Susan,

A very nice post. There are two things I should like to examine more closely:

o "In this view, interposing a barrier so that semen cannot meet egg is clearly defying God's primary purpose for the sexual act. ... But the primary purpose cannot be thwarted."

I am puzzling over the following:
(1) Even if there was no contraceptive in place, it can't be, nor will it ever be established with any conclusiveness that a fertilized egg would have taken place if it weren't for the contraceptive devices in place. Moreover, some people get pregnant anyways even with the use of contraceptives! So the primary divine purpose is not thwarted! At all!

(2) Hypothetically, suppose a married couple used contraceptives in their marriage and they also had children. Then, it really can't be said that they thwarted God's divine purpose since they did have children. Besides, who knows how many children they would have had if they didn't use contraceptives at all during their marriage? Nobody on earth knows.

o "I personally think that while one can draw a meaningful factual and even moral distinction between the two, the whole enterprise is basically of one piece and still deserves those condemnations."

Strategically speaking, I think it's a wiser course of action to pursue the elimination or reduction of abortions by repealing Roe v. Wade, than to have the government ban the sale and use of contraceptives.

[GL]

TUAD,

You are missing the point. This isn't about strategies or about man-made laws and how we can best force our fellow men into morality. That’s what the pharisees did. It's about obedience to God, which means it is really about loving Him with all our heart, mind, soul and strength and our neighbor as our self. And that is why, though I think it could be improperly applied in a wink-and-a-nod sort of way, I find the approach which Stuart advocates far superior to either the Protestant approach or the Catholic approach. The former fails to hold up the perfect to men at all by denying contraception is a moral issue; the latter sets up rules which must be strictly adhered to. What Stuart says the Eastern Church does is hold up the standard of perfection and then works with fallen men to help them move toward it.

Our Lord said that the Law can be summarized in two great commandments, the ones I just cited. All the rest of the Law is just application of those two great commandments. Thus, not to make graven images to worship is an application of the command to love God and not to murder is an application of the command to love our neighbor. In the Old Testament, He tells us that children are a blessing and that blessed is the man who has many of them. Indeed, He blessed our early parents by saying, "Be fruitful and multiply." That is a profound blessing which goes much deeper than just having biological progeny, for it is in essence repeated in the Great Commission, when He commanded his disciples to go and make believers among all nations, which is the spiritual component. And, indeed, the two aspects are related. But the point here is that God says children are a blessing. Contraception says, “No they are not.” We in essence are calling God a liar, just as St. John says we do when we say we are without sin. And in calling Him a liar, we also say we do not trust Him, that what He said was true and that He will provide our needs (not necessarily our wants) if we will simply trust and obey. St. Chrysostom, thus, called the use of contraception “contemning the gifts of God.” Thus, it is simplistic to say that the early Father’s concern was simply about contraception as abortion; it was about something much larger.

And what of the second great command, to love our neighbor as our self. The first question of the Westminster Catechism asks "What is the chief end of man?" The answer is "Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever." Man exists to glorify God and to enjoy Him . . . forever. We do not exist to live 70 some odd years of earth acquiring things that moths will eat and rust corrupt and then to die and rot away back into inanimate elements. We were born for eternity. When we contracept, we deny another body and soul unity the eternal bliss of being in His presence and we deny Him that human being’s eternal adoration. And not only do we do this as to the children we would have had but for our contracepting; we do it as to all of the descendants they would have had until the end of this age, that is, untold numbers of souls. It really is a frightening thing we do when we contracept and my the Lord have mercy on me for my having done so. How can we say we love our neighbor as our self when we do whatever is in our power to do to deny existence to those who would have glorified Him and enjoyed Him forever? How can we say we love Him with all our heart, mind, soul and strength when we do whatever is in our power to do to deny Him those who would glorify Him and enjoy Him forever?

Thus, we come to Onan. Onan sinned because he did what he could to deny Tamar a child. When Tamar finally had a child by Judah, that child became an ancestor of David, who in turn was an ancestor of our Lord, the Son of David. Had Onan succeeded in denying Tamar a child, it would have extinguished the line to Jesus. His sin was terrible indeed, but no more so than when we cut of potential lines of descent. In the arguments against abortion, you often here someone say that the murdered child might have found a cure for cancer or some other such great accomplishment. That same logic applies to contraception and the implications are not just as to that child alone, but all of his descendants who would have been but are not because of our action. Thus, had Onan succeeded, how would mankind have been saved. Therefore, God struck him dead. Again, the implications of his sin go much further than his failure to observe what was then a mere custom. (C.S. Lewis wrote about this aspect of contraception in both The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.)

Now, you may say that if the stakes are so high, we should work to recriminalize contraception. That too, however, misses the point. The early Church had no political power. They could enact no laws for the Roman and Persian Empires in which they were located. But they could live Godly lives, being beacons of light in the darkness, drawing others to that light. Their mission was not to change laws, but to change men. They did not live lives conformed to the culture around them, but lives which sought to be conformed to the image of the Son. And by doing so, they showed their love to others. One way in which they lived counter-cultural lives was in their ethic of life. The pagan practice of infanticide and abortion were rejected, and so was the pagan practice of contraception. They had larger families than the pagans around them. And they cared for those families in sickness and health and for their brothers and sisters in Christ. This attracted the attention of the pagans among whom they lived. Some hated the Christians for their lifestyle and sought to have them persecuted and even murdered. But others were attracted to the light and asked questions and became disciples of our Lord as well. Thus, simply by obeying God and by loving Him and others, they were fruitful and multiplied, both biologically and spiritually.

Outlawing abortion would be nice, but that is not our mission. Changing laws is not our mission; changing lives is our mission. If we are obedient to His commands He will give us victory over our enemies; if we are not, we, like the first generation of Israelites who left Egypt, will wonder in the wilderness. He told them simply to obey His commands, but the refused and yet expected victory despite that. Perhaps the reason we are in the wilderness now, harried by our enemies who seem to gain ground with each passing day, is because we are disobedient. When we seek to conquer without obeying His command for our own lives, we are like those Israelites who went out to fight without Moses and the Ark and suffered defeat. Our call is simple. If we follow it, He will do the rest. He has not called us to win great victories for Him. He wins the victories. He has called us to trust and obey.

[Susan Peterson]

TUAD,

If I aim a gun and shoot, I might miss my target. But my primary intention is to hit that tarket, and if my aim were known to be fairly good you could conclude that uninterfered with, a reasonable percentage of the time, I would hit my tarket, which was the purpose of shooting the gun.
On the other hand, if you interposed a large sheet of bullet proof glass between me and my tarket, my chances of hitting it would be dramatically reduced. One could reasonably say that it was your interposition of the bulletproof glass which prevented me from hitting my target. Now suppose the bulletproof glass occasionally fails, say, 1% of the time.
Does that mean your use of the glass hasn't prevented me from hitting the target the rest of the time?

If a healthy woman in her childbearing years (shall we say 14 to 40 or so?) has intercourse during her fertile period with a man with a normal sperm count and normal sperm, without contraception she has a pretty fair chance of getting pregnant. If you limit this to the most fertile period of a woman's life, say, from 16 to 28, and specify that she has not engaged in behaviors which lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and scarred tubes, the chances become very very high that sperm will meet egg. If you interpose a diaphragm you drastically reduce that chance...that's why you did it, right?

Of course, no one (except God) knows how many children a married couple would have had if they did not contracept. But I'll give you a hint. For most couples, it would be a lot more than two.

I think I may be mistaking two people by the way, mistaking a Francesca for a Fredericka and possibly thereby doing them both an injustice.
Must go, lunch is over.
SFP

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If I aim a gun and shoot, I might miss my target. But my primary intention is to hit that tarket, and if my aim were known to be fairly good you could conclude that uninterfered with, a reasonable percentage of the time, I would hit my tarket, which was the purpose of shooting the gun. <<<

Of course, the whole object of natural family planning is only to shoot while the target has been taken down, thereby ensuring a miss. And since I intend to miss, regardless, does it really matter if I fire my gun off into the blue, or if I shoot it into a backstop?

But the whole marksmanship analogy is appropriate, since the Eastern Churches view sin precisely as "missing the mark". Therefore, if the mark is missed, whether deliberately or by accident (or accidentally on purpose, as is the case with NFP), all are equally hamartia. There is really only one approach that is not hamartia, and that is to shoot at the target with the intention of hitting it, in which case a miss could be chalked up to chance, divine providence, or your own ineptitude. But since we have decided to miss, when the object is to hit, the real issue is why we want to miss. The discusion always seems to get bogged down in the plumbing, and never really addresses the important things--which are, "Why sex?" and "Why marriage?" One could easily see, beginning from first principles, that different conceptions of sex and marriage could lead to different conclusions about subsidiary issues.

>>>I think I may be mistaking two people by the way, mistaking a Francesca for a Fredericka and possibly thereby doing them both an injustice. <<<

You owe the Khouria an apology, big time.

[GL]

Again, I agree with Stuart. I have yet to be convinced that NFP used to avoid conception differs in essence from AC used for the same purpose. If circumstances exist which make use of NFP to avoid conception licit, then I don't see why the use of non-abortifacient AC would not be licit. If circumstances do not exist which make avoiding conception licit, I don't see how it matters which method to do so is used, both are illicit. As a Protestant, simply saying because the Pope said so doesn't persuade me.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

Dear GL,

A wonderful, brilliant, and most excellent post! Thank you so very much for putting your gracious thoughts to electronic paper!

For the purposes of dialogue, I would like to make some observations, questions asking for clarification, etc....

o "You are missing the point. This isn't about strategies or about man-made laws and how we can best force our fellow men into morality."

Personally, I just want to make sure that I'm walking with the Lord properly.

Now with regards to man-made laws and strategies, I'm not as dismissive of them as you are. And arguably, I find them as being related to fulfilling the greatest 2 commandments. We both agree that abortion is a sin and that it's the taking of life. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves. We don't want our neighbor to take the life of an unborn child. We think it's bad for them. We love them so much that we don't want them to do it. So why wouldn't we do what we can to limit or eliminate abortions as evidence of our love to Him and to our neighbor? This loving work may include having to diligently toil in legislative and political arenas.

Jesus is Lord. Of all. All. All includes people and institutions. Jesus transforms people and Jesus transforms institutions. Eg. Wilberforce and slavery. If Wilberforce adopted your suggestions, he would have not got up before Parliament on a regular basis to rail against the evils of slavery.

o "But the point here is that God says children are a blessing. Contraception says, “No they are not.”"

That's not the full portrayal of contraceptive use within a Christian marriage. Now you may be right, but only in the sense of being right for a subset of Christian married couples.

Another portrayal is this: God says children are a blessing. Christian couples say: "Indeed they are! We don't know if we're ready for the blessing quite yet."

o "Their mission was not to change laws, but to change men."

It's a little simplistic. Change the men who change or make the laws, then you have in fact changed the laws.

Eg. Emperor Constantinopole.

o "Changing laws is not our mission; changing lives is our mission."

Spoken like a right-wing conservative fundamentalist who votes Republican. (As Seinfeld says, not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Again, this is a bit simplistic. As someone who has done graduate work in both psychology and sociology, it's not quite that cut-and-dried.

Psychology is individual processing of his stimuli. Sociology looks at how the institutional environment affects humans.

Republicans want less government, more individual autonomy. Democrats want more government, more institutional influence.

In short, sometimes changing laws helps to change or alter human behavior.

Why do you think we have so many lobbyists in Washington and at the state capitals? They know the power of a changed law or a new law. They alter behavior.

So with regards to the saw "Changing laws is not our mission; changing lives is our mission", I'm of the opinion to do "Both/And" contra your position of "Either/Or".

[GL]

If Wilberforce adopted your suggestions, he would have not got up before Parliament on a regular basis to rail against the evils of slavery.

I didn't say we cannot work for changing laws. I advocate for that in my professional writings. But changing law is not our mission; our mission is to bring men to Christ. If we succeed in large enough numbers, at least in a democracy, the laws will take care of themselves. If we succeed with an emperor in an empire, the laws will take care of themselves. In either case, the end was not to change the law; the change in the law was a felicitous by product.

In any event, laws are means, not ends. The purpose of laws against abortion is to end, or at least significantly reduce, abortion. (My friends who support Giuliani can now prepare to pounce on me.) If I had the choice between criminalizing abortion with no significant reduction in its occurrence or leaving it legal, but significantly reducing its occurrence, I would choose the latter every time. In the case of contraception, I am convinced that criminalizing there use after the Civil War did much more harm than good. Again, see my quote from St. Thomas Aquinas from a week or so back.

Again, one must be careful in not confusing the primary mission. Jesus' followers did that. They were looking for an earthly kingdom; He gave them a heavenly kingdom. They were looking to be rulers on earth; He left them to be persecuted and even martyred on earth. They wanted the power to rule; He left that power in the hands of such men as Nero. Viewing changes in the law as an end rather than as a felicitous result of achieving the end places one's trust in princes. Doing what He commands and trusting Him to gain the victories places your trust in God. It is a matter of emphasis and priorities.

[GL]

Another portrayal is this: God says children are a blessing. Christian couples say: "Indeed they are! We don't know if we're ready for the blessing quite yet."

The solution for the couple that is not quite ready to be blessed with children is to not get married and have sexual intercourse until they are. I freely and ashamedly admit that my wife and I did not follow this advise.

[Judy Warner]

Maybe I'm too thick to take your meaning, GL, but I don't see anything to pounce on in your words. Excellent, every one of them.

[GL]

Judy,

I believe you were the one who pointed out some time ago that a lot of politicians who are pro-life actually do little if anything to reduce the number of abortions, while Guiliani had actually reduced it in NYC while mayor even though he is pro-choice. I thought you or Stuart would jump on that one -- I would if the tables were turned. ;-)

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

"Again, they [Eastern Christians] reject the either/or approach of the West." (GL)

Both/And. Change and transform lives. Both Law and Gospel change and transform lives.

Pax.