"Thought Police" = Bad News

What's Next -- Jailing Flat Earth Fans? - By Rabbi Daniel Lapin

"Austria has just sentenced an eccentric, obsessed historian to jail for three years because he expressed his opinion that Auschwitz didn't have gas chambers. David Irving violated Austria's law which provides for up to ten years imprisonment for Holocaust deniers. It is ironic that many of the people cheering this suppression of free speech in Austria are the same people decrying Moslem attempts to do the same in Denmark."

Comment: I'm always a little annoyed when I hear about states who have no enforceable laws on blasphemy against Christ and His Saints enacting laws prosecuting matters which are undoubtedly within the realm of legitimate historical inquiry. If you're interested in forming your own opinion on David Irving's work, visit his publisher's official website here, where a number of his books (whole and uncensored) are available in .PDF (Adobe Acrobat) format.

I'm hoping this will go somewhere.

South Dakota state Senate passes bill to ban nearly all abortions

"PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage."

Comment: If this truly re-opens the debate on abortion in the United States, I think that is a good thing. I think one of the problems has been precisely that there has been no real, open debate on this subject - just two groups spinning their wheels in opposite directions, with one group ("pro-choicers") having the issue ceded to them back in the early 70's.

Saw this coming...

An appeal from the Catholic Church for New Zealanders to boycott an episode of South Park has resulted in a record audience there for the controversial cartoon.

Now, more than ever...

Recently I've been involved in debates at the Catholic Answers Forum about the issue of contraception/family planning, a subject which I've blogged about here before. The exchanges there, the actual rationale for the support of the Humanae Vitae position as argued, and reading the pseudo-patristic arguments of people there, have left me convinced now, more than ever, that the position taken by the Orthodox Church on this topic is the correct and pastorally reponsible one.

The idea that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) hasn't changed it's way of thinking on this topic is a conceit, as are attempts to confound it's current stand with those taken by the ancient Fathers of the Church (who both Orthodoxy and Catholicism lay claim to.)

For example, some Fathers teach that sexual relations with marriage are only for procreation. The use of these teachers as authoritative by the RCC is dishonest, when they teach quite plainly that this is not their belief - the fact that Pope does not impose strict continence upon the infertile (whether due to medical problems or age) is proof enough of this. That it considers so called "Natural Family Planning" (which is basically a high-tech version of the old "Rhythm Method") morally neutral in many circumstances (so long as it does not totally exclude childbearing for reasons of selfishness) is doubly proof of this.

I've concluded that there are many reasons why Fathers like St.Clement of Alexandria or Bl.Augustine taught along these lines. There is a logic to it - obviously sex is fundamentally for procreating, just as eating is fundamentally for nutrition. This in turn is wedded to an obvious evangelical ideal - total self mastery, or put more correctly, dispassion. Such a state has always been considered desirable, and is the goal of ascesis. Far from making us into cold, Vulcan-like robots, it is essential for true freedom, and the ability to love in a 100% pure, unmercenary way.

However the reality that the Church has to deal with, is that for most people, sexual desire does not disappear simply because the ability/desire to have children is not present. Also, there is another thread in ancient Christian thought, going right back to St.Paul, which also needs to be paid heed to - and this is that it is that it is better to be married (and have this as the sanctioned outlet for such things) than "to burn" with, and be overwhelmed by sexual desire (to the point of fornicating, which lacks the commitment necessary to foster selfless love or the bonds to ensure the upbringing of Godly offspring.) Thus, while it may not be ideal, marriage as a "vent" for sexual passion is totally legitimate and God has given His blessing to this.

This is beside the fact that not all of the Fathers held that married sex was "pointless"/barely-tolerable were it enjoyed save for the express purpose of "making babies." St.John Chrysostom is most often pointed to for his teaching in this area, and rightly so, for he was quite clear on this point.

It was this pastoral consideration which has probably motivated most confessors to not burden the conscience of elderly couples or the infertile with accusations of sin, though it would seem at times this has happened. It is also undoubtedly this consideration which led the RCC, beginning with Pope Pius XII, to unambiguously teach the permissability of things like the "rhythm method."

But what about what the RCC would term "artificial", but still non-abortifacient methods of family planning? This is where another strain of thinking comes into play. The major concern of the ancient Fathers is with abortion. Almost every "proof-text" you'll see on an RC-Apologetics website about this topic, will be speaking about trying to "foil nature" by killing the offspring while it is still being formed in the womb. It is this, and not "contraception" as we now understand it, which the Fathers considered worse than killing a newborn, as many RC's falsely attribute to Patristic thought. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how they can say such a thing anyway - as if it were the case that the Vatican itself teaches such foolishness. To my knowledge, getting an abortion if you're a Roman Catholic will get you excommunicated; "using a condom" will most likely (if the priest even cares about what Humanae Vitae has to say) get you a Rosary for a penance, if that.

Where the Fathers do speak on a remotely related note, has to do with the "wasting of the seed". If pastoral/moral-theological positions are going to be formed (and formed they are on topics like this, since this is definately not a matter dealt with by Divine Revelation) on the basis of natural-law (which understands the natural order to be a form of revelation) then the correctness of your rulings can't help but be relative to your understanding of nature. And the fact of the matter is, the common understanding of procreation in the ancient world is at best, pseudo-scientific.

According to the great naturalist-philosopher Aristotle, the male seed (the semen - he would have had no clue about "sperm cells", that only one of them is needed for conception, despite the fact that tens of millions are ejaculated every time a healthy man climaxes) is the formal cause of a child, while the mother is the material cause. There was no concept in the ancient world that the woman had her own "seed" (ovum/egg), and that both this egg and a sperm cell only each contained half of the genetic information necessary for conceiving a child. Putting it bluntly, the semen was understood to be a homoculi of a child, and taking this thought paradigm seriously, was fundamentally not much different than a newly conceived fetus. It would be the difference between an acorn falling from a tree, and an acorn embedded in soil.

This perspective was, as far as I can tell, near universal. But it is incorrect.

So if one is going to form pastoral policy on the basis of natural law, this kind of incorrect information ought not be used. Why would any lover of souls use the power to "bind and loose", to tie people's consciences to something, to create an impediment to their salvation, unless it was absolutely necessary; unless there was absolutely an essential good that needed to be protected and an inherent evil to be avoided?

While Humanae Vitae rests upon this incorrect natural-law argument, it seems obvious to me that the RCC itself has moved beyond this. Very few now will bother trying to offer this as a thoughtful defence - such is left to RC Apologist-Hucksters and other such non-hierarchal/theologian activitists. Instead we've seen the emergence of Pope John Paul II's whole Theology of the Body, part of which becomes an argument against "artificial" forms of family planning.

While there is much in this aspect of the late Pope's teaching on marriage which is edifying and even quite Orthodox (ex. gender as a revelation of God, and marriage as a teaching about the economy of salvation), it's argument against "Artificial Birth Control" ("ABC") is very weak and judgemental. I say "judgemental" not because I'm some whiney liberal who can't stand anyone who so much as attempts to make moral distinctions - no, I mean to condemn this precisely in the way the Holy Scriptures condemn it. The basic argument of the late Pope, is that ABC is wrong because it requires that the couple using it be incapable of "giving themselves wholly and entirely" to one another.

I have two problems with this. First, as I said, it assumes way, way too much; both of those who use ABC, and of those who use NFP (Natural Family Planning). Second, if consistantly applied, this reasoning would require that any married sexual activity not rooted in some profound expression of love be called a mortal sin. As a married man, I don't think I'm being presumptuous in saying that such thinking is fantastical - the reality is, that there are going to be many times, for many (no, most) married couples where one or both partners simply want to have sex because (to put it euphemistically) "they've got the itch". So unless the Vatican is prepared to issue encyclicals against married couples having "a quickie" or a husband laying down with his wife to anything less than three scented candles and a nice bottle of wine, I find this manner of argument to be pretty lame. It also shoots to hell the teaching I've found in every single Roman Catholic moral theological source (old or new), that it is an objectively grave sin against justice for one spouse to refuse sex to another for anything but very serious reasons (ex. abandonment, infidelity, grave medical issues, etc.) IOW. the RCC teaches that it is quite possible (and even necessary) for a spouse to have sexual relations with their partner without being particularly "into it" - nay, they may even downright not want to.

This idea also seems to contradict the Apostolic/Scriptural teaching, that the venting of sexual passion is a legitimate use of marriage.

On the whole then, the RC teaching on ABC seems to be a pastoral stand in search of a justification. That is a terrible grounds for telling people they're enemies of grace, and not welcome to approach the Chalice.

Simple proclamation of the Gospel

Something which has occured to me, is that a lot of Orthodox evangelism in the west is clearly geared toward those who are already (or were already at some point) "churched" in another Christian confession. Thus a lot of the missionary efforts in this area are works of correction and addition - but in some wise, these efforts are already building upon a pre-established foundation.

But what of those who have not been "churched" in any meaningful way? How does the Church effectively reach these people - people who very likely are not going to have the same kind of "doctrinal authenticity" issues (and less yet, disillusionment and gripes about their former confessions on those types of issues)?

I think in a real way, such secular persons and outreach toward them are a purer case for Orthodox evangelism, and even offer those in the Church a good opportunity to really assess just what is important; what their first love is, or maybe even, what their first love ought to be.

I've been involved in my share of debates on soteriology (doctrine of salvation) - there is even a recent thread on this topic at this blog. However even I am prepared to admit that sometimes such discussions can become decadent and quite doctrinairre. It is true that when the Orthodox Christian says certain things, there is an implied meaning to these terms which is likely at variance with the way the same language would be used by other Christian confessions. Yet, I think there is a danger as well (and here I grant something significant to those who are a little put off with those who heavily emphasize what is distinct about Orthodox soteriology) of losing sight of the basic affirmations of our faith, the very basic, simple statements which are the "well" from which we may draw the waters of deeper understanding.

Thus while it is true that the Orthodox Church has a very definate outlook on the nature of man, what sin "is", and what the essence of Christ's feat of redemption is, I also think it is foolhearty (and even quite pompous) to think everyone in the Church needs to be running around throwing around exotic/obscure language, or worse yet, that this is how you introduce the dogma of redemption to worldly people. IOW. going to "Joe Secular" and going on about theosis or talking about the darkened 'nous' will most likely get you blank stares, or worse, have you and your gospel deemed obsucrant and irrelevent.

This is why I don't think something simple (I'm sure most of you have seen this type of diagram before in Evangelical Protestant materials) like the following graphic is at all misleading and without value in explaining the basics of our faith.



It is things like this which are also why I have to agree with Fr.Seraphim (Rose) of Platina, that while the "manual theology" of the so called "Latin captivity" is indeed prone to being very superficial and even overly narrow (and thus the modern revival of Patristic studies ought to be a very welcome phenomenon), for the most part there was nothing heretical or contrary to Orthodoxy in it. Also, perhaps in our mania for the "depths of the ancient Fathers" we can easily forget the usefulness of a "bare bones" approach - for if you don't have the basics, you'll hardly be able to delve any deeper. I also believe integration into the life of of the Church (Her services, and the Orthodox life which one takes away from that into the home and into all of the other parts of one's daily life) will also, if persevered in faithfully, provide the context and "filling in" that such a skeletal framework requires to grow into real understanding (even if it is an understanding one cannot quite articulate like the lofty Ecumenical Teachers of the Church were able to).

This is why, as I contemplate the matter, I don't think there is (when it's all put into proper perspective) the sharp disconnect that some perceive between the more weighty insights of modern neo-Patristic teachers like Metropolitan Hierotheos or the late Fr.John Romanides and the simpler (but perhaps more useful in terms of catechesis amongst neophytes and the simple - the latter being the ones God seems to favour most of all) catechesis offered in something like the old Catechism of St.Philaret of Moscow.

After all, how can the truth which is needful for salvation, the correct guidance of God and His Church, be something that is out of the reach of the unlettered or children? While I can definately see teaching something like the catechism I just referenced to neophytes and little ones, "deeper" or simply more advanced theological treatise' and discussions of doctrinal subjects can just be confusing or even create the false impression that we "enlightened Orthodox" don't really believe people are sinful and that these sins are offences before God which without Christ Jesus would exclude us from the blessedness of Heaven and the life of the world to come. Thus, while I'm inclined (from what I've read) to think Fr.Seraphim did not properly understand/interpret what Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was getting at in his controversial The Dogma of Redemption (indeed, I've come to realize that I greatly misunderstood this work as well), I do understand and sympathize with his concern (and it's not one that I think is baseless) that it is possible to concoct a "Christianity without the Cross". I think getting the "basics" down first is a sure way of avoiding this temptation.