1,942
edits
Changes
→Dissenting position #1: critique of Hayward article
:Fair enough, I’m about to go away for a week myself. I think there’s a difference between #1 and 9/11 truthers etc: that #1 arguably represents what Church Fathers have said about contraception, whereas 9/11 truthers’ beliefs have no grounding in Church Tradition. Admittedly, some Church Fathers have been flat-earthers (e.g. St John Chrysostom), however the Church Fathers aren’t great sources for scientific models of the world (but are great sources for moral instruction). In any case, I’ve now included a source for #1 , an article written by an Orthodox theologian. Will this do?
:I’m not sure what you mean by “biological determinism”, and “even the Catholic Church” – please clarify. I understood biological determinism as referring to the belief that people’s behaviours are predominantly governed by their biological make-up (genes, physiology etc.), as opposed to their environment (i.e. nature vs. nurture). Are you using the term in some other sense that is unfamiliar to me?
===Hayward article===
While I wouldn’t classify Hayward as an Orthodox theologian, and while this wasn’t published in an academic or even popular journal, at least it is "something." However, there are numerous problems with this flawed piece of polemics. Off the top of my head:
1. He writes, “As Orthodox, I have somewhat grave concerns about my own Church, which condemned contraception before 1970 but in recent decades appears to have developed a “new consensus” more liberal than the Catholic position.” This is patently false. Apart from the case of the Church of Greece’s 1937 encyclical (which does not support his condemnation of NFP), he argues on the basis of individual church fathers — not the Church, which has never issued a decree against limiting the number of children out of unselfish reasons.
2. He claims, ““The Orthodox Church has issued such statements {about contraception) more than once.” Name them. And, more precisely, name them that condemn even NFP, as Hayward does.
3. Strangely, despite having claimed that the Church has spoken many times against contraception, he complains: “And so for Zaphiris to point out that the Orthodox Church has never “defined” a statement about contraception—a point that would be obvious to someone knowing what sorts of things the Church does not “define;” “defining” a position against murder would, for some definitions of “define,” be like drinking a sandwich—and lead the reader to believe that the Church has never issued a highly authoritative statement about contraception. The Orthodox Church has issued such statements more than once. Saying that the Orthodox Church has never “defined” a position on a moral question is as silly and as pointless as saying that a man has never drunk a roast beef sandwich: it is technically true, but sheds no light on whether a person has consumed such a sandwich—or taken a stand on the moral question at hand. Zaphiris’s “observation” is beginning to smell a lot like spin doctoring.” In addition to trying to use a severely narrow definition of “define,” he undercuts his own claim that the Church has spoken authoritatively about contraception, and he is also wrong about the Church not doing so on other moral issues, concerning which the Church in ecumenical council (e.g., the Quinisext Council on abortion, AD 692) and individual synods on abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.
4. He quotes from Zaphiris: “We have offered these remarks in the hope that they can contribute to a common basis for an ecumenical discussion on the contemporary human problem of contraception.” Hayward replies, “Orthodox who are concerned with ecumenism may wish to take note of this statement of authorial intent.” In other words, any readers who are worried about the alleged “heresy” of ecumenism, should dismiss this article. That’s a fallacious attempt to discredit the article.
5. He also mischaracterizes and impugns the article as “lobbyist” in nature.
6. He seems to trace Orthodox what he would incorrectly describe as the “post-1970”) view of contraception to this article. Evokimov wrote in 1962, citing a Russian article from 1960, and Phillip Sherrard wrote his reply to Humane Vitae in 1969.
7. He argues that the prohibition of even NFP is “absolute,” and that it “admits no oikonomia in its observation,” adding that, even if it did allow economy in its application, it would be leniency in applying a “grave moral principle.”
8. He follows St Jerome, et al., in supposing Gen 38.9 to be about contraception, which it is not, missing that Leviticus indicates that spilling seen is a matter of ritual impurity only, requiring only a ritual bath, and not the “death penalty” the story says God enacts against Onan.
9. In response to Zaphiris’s argument from scripture about the right to sexual relations within marriage (1 Cor 7.4-5), Hayward attacks not the argument but the fact that Zaphiris used the word “right,” which leads Hayward to go down a several-paragraph rabbit trail on rights’ based moral claims that don’t touch Zaphiris’s point.
10. He empathies quotations from St John Chrysostom that are not clearly on point, such as from his 24th homily on Romans, which is arguably only about abortions and abortifacient contraception. He doesn’t acknowledge that when St John Chrysostom does talk about Onan, he does not identify his sin as one of contraception.