|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The sins of the mothers
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The Russian Orthodox Church has ruled that a baby carried by a surrogate mother cannot be baptised until its parents repent of the sin of having used a surrogate.
A pretty fierce debate is ringing about this in my corner of Orthodoxfacebookland. What do the people here think? Are they taking out the sins the parents on the child, or "protecting the sanctity" of the sacrament, or trying to ensure the child will be brought up in the Orthodox faith, or just whack?
My opinion is that the Synod is using the child as a pawn to compel the parents to bow down to its moral authority.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
And here is me mistakenly thinking that the Orthodox Church was evangelical, urgently desiring that all who will be mystically united to Christ through baptism, chrismation, and Eucharist.
Dolts!
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Since when are the sins of the parents a barrier to an infant's baptism? Most churches hold that the parents must desire to raise their children in a Christian manner and raise them in the Christian faith. Baptism is NOT the Lord's Supper where repentance of sin is an intrinsic part of the sacrament.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I can only imagine how deeply this is going to inspire those parents to raise their children in the Church.
Honestly. It's an awe inspiring, challenging and jaw droppingly beautiful form of Christianity. Why do they have to mess it up so much?
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A pretty fierce debate is ringing about this in my corner of Orthodoxfacebookland. What do the people here think? Are they taking out the sins the parents on the child, or "protecting the sanctity" of the sacrament, or trying to ensure the child will be brought up in the Orthodox faith, or just whack?
According to your own linked source (which ultimately happens to be a Catholic news agency...), we at least know what the Russian bishops intended: "Infant baptism, the statement continued, presumes “upbringing in the Christian faith and according to the norms of Christian morality.” Such an upbringing cannot be assumed, the synod stated, unless those presenting the infant for baptism – either the parents or the surrogate mother – repent. Without such repentance, baptism must be deferred until the child can make the choice."
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A pretty fierce debate is ringing about this in my corner of Orthodoxfacebookland. What do the people here think? Are they taking out the sins the parents on the child, or "protecting the sanctity" of the sacrament, or trying to ensure the child will be brought up in the Orthodox faith, or just whack?
According to your own linked source (which ultimately happens to be a Catholic news agency...), we at least know what the Russian bishops intended: "Infant baptism, the statement continued, presumes “upbringing in the Christian faith and according to the norms of Christian morality.” Such an upbringing cannot be assumed, the synod stated, unless those presenting the infant for baptism – either the parents or the surrogate mother – repent. Without such repentance, baptism must be deferred until the child can make the choice."
While I don't necessarily agree with this, I can understand it. What I'd like to know, though, is how they intend to help the child make that choice, especially since it looks like the child, its parents, and the surrogate mother are being pushed (pastorally, at least) away from the church. It's also not going to be easily forgotten that the parents and surrogate were asked to repent for brining this child into the world. How would any of us feel knowing the church thought we shouldn't have existed? And then that we weren't allowed to be baptized until our parents agreed that we shouldn't have been born? Yikes.
Also, we all know that motives can be mixed, though, and while the stated intention of the Bishops is understandable, it wouldn't be surprising if this were also an action taken to make a statement about the church's teaching on surrogacy.
(How bizarre to tell a woman who has given her body for 9 months and gone through labor and childbirth all for others that she has sinned!)
Can't the church "let the little children come unto Me" by finding suitable godparents at least? It seems like pastorally, that could ensure (as much as anything can) the child's upbringing in the faith.
But I, as an Anglican, have no problem with surrogacy. Maybe it would look very different if I did.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It is false anyway to say that the parents present the child for baptism. The godparents present the child for baptism, not the parents. The parents don't even take part in the service. They sit (well, stand) and watch as the godparents hold the baby and recite the pledges.
I've never heard of a requirement for the parents to go to confession before baptism. And there are plenty of cases where the parents aren't Orthodox, maybe not even Christian, but the child is brought to be baptised by the grandparents, who are.
This is generally not the sort of thing that has a zero-tolerance, mandatory-sentencing, make-a-federal-case-about-it type rule made about it in the Orthodox Church. This kind of thing could be handled quietly and discreetly by the priest and the couple, without the bishops making a big international spectacle out of the whole thing. Hard not to accuse them of grandstanding. They're coming across like American Teabaggers more than historically attuned Orthodox bishops.
Like I said, the bishops are using the child as a pawn to punish the parents. Which will have the effect of driving all of them away from the church. Good going, bishops. Yeah, you really handled this well.
I also agree with churchgeek: The synod is basically saying, "This child ought not to exist, and the parents need to repent of having brought it into being." Yeah, that's a Christian message to send.
This is pro-life? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I find it quite interesting that official Russian orthodox teaching (what is Russian Orthodox speak for "magisterium"?) is that artificial insemination is morally licit as long as fertilized eggs are not destroyed. I infer that they do believe that human life and personhood start with conception, aligning the Russian Orthodox with RC teaching and presumably meaning a strict condemnation of abortion.
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
(How bizarre to tell a woman who has given her body for 9 months and gone through labor and childbirth all for others that she has sinned!)
Surrogate mothers do not generally accept this "job" out of the goodness of their hearts, but for substantial amounts of money. Whether this particular mode of using one's body to obtain money is sinful (like prostitution) or not (like most manual labour) is a valid question. But it is not settled simply by virtue of accepting the pregnancy.
However, I would be very interested in the Russian bishops' argumentation against surrogacy. After all, from a RC point of view they pretty much gave the argument away by allowing artificial insemination in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is false anyway to say that the parents present the child for baptism. The godparents present the child for baptism, not the parents. The parents don't even take part in the service. They sit (well, stand) and watch as the godparents hold the baby and recite the pledges.
I've never heard of a requirement for the parents to go to confession before baptism. And there are plenty of cases where the parents aren't Orthodox, maybe not even Christian, but the child is brought to be baptised by the grandparents, who are.
Wow, how weird and ... wrong. Clearly this is a case where the East can learn proper orthopraxis - indeed, rather obvious and simple prudence - from the West.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Okaaaaay.
Riddle me this, then.
In what other cases is the neglecting of "ecclesial tradition and [the not sharing of] the Christian teaching about marriage and family" [note, last para.] sufficient to deny baptism to an infant presented?
Are the children of unmarried couples routinely refused baptism and the priest who performs them subject to canonical sanctions?
In the case of marital rape or of spousal abuse of the husband upon the mother? Does the Russian Holy Mother Church require the repentance of the father for failing to share the Church's teaching?
And, in a different strain of questions, reading my handy-dandy Trebnik raises these.
Baptism is a piece of a full "Entry into the Church."
What do the worthy Bishops of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church have to say about a priest who dares to go to the house to pray over a child and mother on the first day after birth?
Who dares to preside in the church on the eighth day for the naming of the child?
Who dares to pray in the church on the fortieth day after the birth?
Who dares to make the child a catechumen immediately preceding the baptism? That evangelical service in which the sponsors are three times interrogated by the priest, "Do you renounce Satan, and all his works, and all his angels, and all his service, and all his pride?" And, then asked a further three times, "Have you renounced Satan?" And then asked three times, "Do you unite yourself to Christ?" then confirmed by asking "Have you united yourself to Christ?" and "Do you believe in Him?" (And, this Trebnik suggests that these ten questions together with the recitation of the Symbol of Faith is repeated in their entirety a second and, yet again, a third time!)
Do these bishops have so little faith? So little faith in the power of their own liturgy to convert?!
After the Chrismation the sponsors are exhorted by the priest to rejoice that those sponsors, "who have strived today [emphasis in the original] in church, for a new rod has been grafted to the True Vine, Christ the Lord...for you have received from the divine font this child of grace and light...and have been made for him a spiritual father with a commission and reception on earth," to "instruct him in the Orthodox-Catholic Faith, all its ordinance...to lead him to a life...according to the Christian calling."
Finally, let it be said that this despicable denial of baptism (and life!) is all about exercising discipline over the priest and has nought to do with the child, except as the denied baptisand becomes some collateral damage in this misbegotten skirmish in the cultural war being waged by these Thug-Bishops and their complicit Thug-Priests, their campaign against the lives of gay people being yet another front at which lives are being lost.
[ 06. January 2014, 13:03: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
The Bible doesn't seem to have a problem with surrogate motherhood:
Genesis 30:1-13
With particular reference to verse 3: 'So she said, "Here is my maid Bilhah; go in to her, and she will bear a child on my knees, that I also may have children by her."'
Or perhaps some mental acrobatics can be performed to pretend that this was not God's will, even though the sons of Jacob became the basis for the tribes of God's chosen people?
[ 06. January 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Thanks to TSA for the link, which included references to a "BSC" that clearly had relevant doctrinal content. Assuming that the abbreviation stood for "The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church" I followed the link for that. And see what I have found: a collection of serious Orthodox documents, in English. Cool. And yes, the quotes are from that document.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Freaks. Bring the child here, I'll do it. Poor wee thing.
The parents could also do the baptising themselves, at least according to Western understanding. The issue at hand is however the recognition of the Church.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... After all, from a RC point of view they pretty much gave the argument away by allowing artificial insemination in the first place. ...
Tangent alert
Does the RC church forbid artificial insemination using the husband's sperm in cases of infertility where this is the only way of achieving fertilisation? After all, it's not adulterous.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert
Does the RC church forbid artificial insemination using the husband's sperm in cases of infertility where this is the only way of achieving fertilisation? After all, it's not adulterous.
Yes, if by artificial insemination one means a replacement rather than a technical facilitation of the conjugal act. See here, scroll down to the header "B. HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I find it quite interesting that official Russian orthodox teaching (what is Russian Orthodox speak for "magisterium"?) is that artificial insemination is morally licit as long as fertilized eggs are not destroyed. I infer that they do believe that human life and personhood start with conception, aligning the Russian Orthodox with RC teaching and presumably meaning a strict condemnation of abortion.
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
(How bizarre to tell a woman who has given her body for 9 months and gone through labor and childbirth all for others that she has sinned!)
Surrogate mothers do not generally accept this "job" out of the goodness of their hearts, but for substantial amounts of money. Whether this particular mode of using one's body to obtain money is sinful (like prostitution) or not (like most manual labour) is a valid question. But it is not settled simply by virtue of accepting the pregnancy.
However, I would be very interested in the Russian bishops' argumentation against surrogacy. After all, from a RC point of view they pretty much gave the argument away by allowing artificial insemination in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is false anyway to say that the parents present the child for baptism. The godparents present the child for baptism, not the parents. The parents don't even take part in the service. They sit (well, stand) and watch as the godparents hold the baby and recite the pledges.
I've never heard of a requirement for the parents to go to confession before baptism. And there are plenty of cases where the parents aren't Orthodox, maybe not even Christian, but the child is brought to be baptised by the grandparents, who are.
Wow, how weird and ... wrong. Clearly this is a case where the East can learn proper orthopraxis - indeed, rather obvious and simple prudence - from the West.
Iirc surrogacy cannot be done for money in the UK (I know this case isn't in the UK, but making the point that surrogacy isn't about the monetary gain everywhere).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I am led to wonder whether the baptism of a foundling would be permitted. After all, if the parents are unknown, then they might well have used artificial insemination.
The title of the thread seems odd; every child has two (biological) parents.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert
Does the RC church forbid artificial insemination using the husband's sperm in cases of infertility where this is the only way of achieving fertilisation? After all, it's not adulterous.
Yes, if by artificial insemination one means a replacement rather than a technical facilitation of the conjugal act. See here, scroll down to the header "B. HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION".
However, this would not prevent an RC priest baptising a baby conceived in vitro, would it? Any more than it would prevent an RC priest baptising a child of unmarried parents?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yes, if by artificial insemination one means a replacement rather than a technical facilitation of the conjugal act. See here, scroll down to the header "B. HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION".
IngoB, can you explain this Instruction in words ordinary people can understand? Have I got this right that it is permitted if the couple are regularly engaging in ordinary sexual intercourse without using contraception, but the wife is not getting pregnant. However, it is not permitted if the couple are not regularly engaging in ordinary sexual intercourse, and use AI as a substitute for conception by normal means?
Or does it mean something else, and if so, what - in terms one can understand?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
With at least one wikipedia articla, HCH asserts:
every child has two (biological) parents.
A little poking around at the possibilities shows this to be unhelpfully restrictive. The woman who provides the womb for gestation, in addition to the woman who provides the egg, surely can be said to have a biological relation to the child.
Perhaps genetic and gestational are more helpful qualifiers.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
The title of the thread seems odd; every child has two (biological) parents.
Not sure what that has to do with the title; the title wasn't chosen to enumerate biological parents, but to allude to the "sin" in question, which has to do with there being an inordinate number (according to their august majesties the Synod of the ROC) of mothers involved in birthing this child. The "mothers" in question are the egg donor (biological mother as concerns DNA) and the surrogate (biological mother as concerns gestation).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My opinion is that the Synod is using the child as a pawn to compel the parents to bow down to its moral authority.
Given the recent history of the Synod, I see this conclusion as inevitable.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or does it mean something else, and if so, what - in terms one can understand?
It is not my intention to derail this thread with yet another discussion about Catholic sexual morality. I'm very happy that we are discussing Orthodox sexual morality for once. So I will keep my response crude and brief: man and woman marry for life, he occasionally sticks his penis into her vagina and (eventually) ejaculates in there as far as capable, whether conception occurs is left to the natural state of their bodies. That's allowed by Catholic lights. Nothing else. Simples. For more sophisticated discussions see the Vatican documents or indeed the multitude of prior discussions of Catholic sexual morality.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Do they baptise children born to the adulterous partners of men married to per women?
Have they in the past baptised children born to servants/slaves/concubines/mistresses of rich men? (We could start by asking about the illegitimate children of Tsars)
Will they baptise children of second wives of polygamous marriages?
I bet the answer is "yes" to all of those.
How is this different for them?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
I find this quite odd. Even if a surrogate has been paid she still has done a good thing in carrying the child for the couple. So where be the sin ? Don't see it myself.
Where does that put on the BVM who in my opinion is the first surrogate mother and
God enginered that event.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Iirc surrogacy cannot be done for money in the UK (I know this case isn't in the UK, but making the point that surrogacy isn't about the monetary gain everywhere).
It can be, and it is. However the Courts will not enforce contracts for surrogacy. The surrogate cannot sue for the agreed fee. It's similar to the approach taken to gambling debts: you can't sue for them, but that doesn't mean that gambling for money doesn't happen.
I find it odd that the parents aren't involved in the baptismal promises in the Orthodox church (especially as it is a church which clearly considers baptism to be extremely important). Anglican baptisms I've attended have always had parents and godparents repenting of sins, turning to Christ and renouncing evil. I'm aware that priests often carry out baptismal preparation where the meaning and importance of those declarations are explained. If, in Orthodoxy, that is not considered necessary or usual, I can't see why surrogacy should be a special case.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
What's the theological term used to describe someone born of a surrogate mother?
Is it an impediment to a person becoming an Orthodox priest, in the same way being illegitimate used to require dispensation in order to be ordained a priest in the Catholic Church? For that matter, did the same barrier to ordaining illegitimate men ever exist in the Orthodox Church?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It can be, and it is. However the Courts will not enforce contracts for surrogacy. The surrogate cannot sue for the agreed fee. It's similar to the approach taken to gambling debts: you can't sue for them, but that doesn't mean that gambling for money doesn't happen. ...
I'm fairly sure it's also the case that if the surrogate is overcome by maternal feelings and decides not to hand the child back to the commissioning parents, there is diddlysquat they can do about it.
It's a bit of a controversial subject, but I get the impression the whole idea of surrogate motherhood and hiring wombs inspires quite a lot of visceral distaste in the UK, to a degree that it doesn't seem to arouse in some other countries.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
What's the theological term used to describe someone born of a surrogate mother?
Human.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
One of my cousins has twins that are genetically hers and her husbands but were gestated by a surrogate mother. Although I have never spoken to my cousin about this, it is my understanding from other family members that the reason they are not Roman Catholic now is because a priest would not baptize the babies. So apparently it isn't just the Orthodox. They went to an Episcopalian church and had it done there.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Up until at least Elizabethan times, it was usual in RC England for parents to not be present at a child's baptism. The infant would usually be baptised before the mother had finished her lying-in, for starters.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
What's the theological term used to describe someone born of a surrogate mother?
Human.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
did the same barrier to ordaining illegitimate men ever exist in the Orthodox Church?
That I do not know.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hugorune
Apprentice
# 17793
|
Posted
I don't understand Orthodoxy nearly as well as most here, but this troubles me deeply. I don't believe Christ intended for his grace to be denied to anyone on account of his or her own sin, let alone that of their parents.
Indeed as a general rule, I'm not comfortable with the church putting itself forward as an arbiter of salvation. Hence why I passionately favour open communion to absolutely all who are baptised and come with a faithful heart, and this seems to me to be the same principle.
In this case where there is clearly a disagreement with the church and their families over whether a sin has occured, the church should perhaps feel free to share whatever wisdom they possess on the matter, but they should administer the sacrament nonetheless. The rest is up to God, who is merciful to the faithful.
--------------------
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
Posts: 47 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
The rest is up to God, who is merciful to the faithful.
That's the spiritual corruption of most modern churches in a nutshell.
Now, do we have some conservative Orthodox who is going to step up for the bishops of Russia? Take heart.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Before we all ride on in hoity-toity majesty on this, reflect a little.
I think we're all agreed that the church should not condemn a child because of the sins of his or her parents, nor because they have made moral choices that we regard (possibly in this case correctly) as understandable but defective.
Nevertheless, very few churches these days encourage indiscriminate baptism of all comers, the way that was done sixty years ago. There are different views on the objective efficacy of baptismal regeneration. Nevertheless, the higher one's view, the more it is an abuse of a sacrament to administer it in that way. Indiscriminate baptism can look like the equivalent of taking communion without discerning the body. One could say that a child is in more mortal peril being baptised by parents who don't take the rite seriously than by not being baptised until he or she attains an age to decide for themself.
I suspect that virtually all the various churches and congregations to which shipmates belong apply some sort of discipline to the process. The CofE generally expects parents of babies who are going to be baptised to attend preparation sessions, and godparents as well if possible. It also expects clergy to provide them and disapproves of those that don't.
Whether we agree with the way the Russian church's approach to this particular issue is a quite different matter. I don't know, and nor I suspect do most other shipmates, whether this is a protest decision about something that is rare to unknown in Russia but disapproved of elsewhere, making a stand against the decadent west, or whether there has developed a fashionable trend for rich oligarchs to do this so as to protect their figures. If the former, that is grandstanding. If the latter, then IMHO the Synod has a point and I take off my hat to them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
I find this quite odd. Even if a surrogate has been paid she still has done a good thing in carrying the child for the couple. So where be the sin ? Don't see it myself.
Where does that put on the BVM who in my opinion is the first surrogate mother and
God enginered that event.
This. I find it very odd and unloving.
What about children born by AID? (or AIH for that matter - I have one of them!)
In the case of AID and AIH no one need know except the medical teams. It's a sad world when giving life and love is seen as a sin.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
I don't believe in baptism as a sacrament, but if I did and I wanted to be part of a church which had this kind of teaching, I can't see that it is inconsistent to expect parents to repent of sins (or even specific sins) before their child is baptised.
I suppose one might say that there is a uncalled for randomness implicit in this specific sin (why should the parents be called on this rather than anything else?) - but then that is the way of these things.
Ultimately, perhaps, the parents should have thought of the impact upon their family of being rejected by their church because of their choice to have a surrogate. I guess they're still free to a) repent b) give up on the idea of baptising their child or c) join a different church.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
hugorune
Apprentice
# 17793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I suppose one might say that there is a uncalled for randomness implicit in this specific sin (why should the parents be called on this rather than anything else?) - but then that is the way of these things.
It's not randomness. It's self-righteousness. Far too often those in the church hieracy condemn others for specifically selected sins that they do not commit themselves. When was the last time you saw a church deny sacraments to believers on the basis of unrepentant pride? Never. It's far easy for us to condemn others, and be righteous in our own eyes, on the basis of those sins which others commit.
--------------------
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
Posts: 47 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I suppose one might say that there is a uncalled for randomness implicit in this specific sin (why should the parents be called on this rather than anything else?) - but then that is the way of these things.
It's not randomness. It's self-righteousness. Far too often those in the church hieracy condemn others for specifically selected sins that they do not commit themselves. When was the last time you saw a church deny sacraments to believers on the basis of unrepentant pride? Never. It's far easy for us to condemn others, and be righteous in our own eyes, on the basis of those sins which others commit.
Woo there sailor, it isn't my opinion, my church or my theology. Nothing could persuade me that this was anything other than Wrong. But then I accept the right of others to make choices in things that I feel are entirely Wrong.
Self-righteousness is essentially a matter of opinion - one doesn't actually have to have committed murder to believe it is a sin.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
When was the last time you saw a church deny sacraments to believers on the basis of unrepentant pride? Never.
How precisely would you go about determining that someone is mortally sinning through unrepentant pride?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hugorune
Apprentice
# 17793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Woo there sailor, it isn't my opinion, my church or my theology. Nothing could persuade me that this was anything other than Wrong. But then I accept the right of others to make choices in things that I feel are entirely Wrong.
Self-righteousness is essentially a matter of opinion - one doesn't actually have to have committed murder to believe it is a sin.
I fully understand that and I wasn't trying to have a go at you personally, although I would venture the opinion that surrogacy is hardly murder.
The point I'm trying to make is that when church authorities condemn those actions which they consider sinful (when society in general tolerates them), there is a very high tendency for those condemned actions to be external to them. For example, conservative churches speak out far more often on the issue of same sex marriage than they do on divorce. Although it's questionable if the former is more of a threat to the sacrament of marriage than the latter, the latter tends to make them uncomfortable due to the actions of their own members. I don't think this is a coincidence.
[ 07. January 2014, 09:19: Message edited by: hugorune ]
Posts: 47 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hugorune
Apprentice
# 17793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
When was the last time you saw a church deny sacraments to believers on the basis of unrepentant pride? Never.
How precisely would you go about determining that someone is mortally sinning through unrepentant pride?
I think we have a pretty good example of it when the Church withholds sacraments to show how righteous they are.
--------------------
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
Posts: 47 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
When was the last time you saw a church deny sacraments to believers on the basis of unrepentant pride? Never.
How precisely would you go about determining that someone is mortally sinning through unrepentant pride?
I think we have a pretty good example of it when the Church withholds sacraments to show how righteous they are.
So the Church shouldn't withold the sacraments to anyone for any reason then?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hugorune
Apprentice
# 17793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
When was the last time you saw a church deny sacraments to believers on the basis of unrepentant pride? Never.
How precisely would you go about determining that someone is mortally sinning through unrepentant pride?
I think we have a pretty good example of it when the Church withholds sacraments to show how righteous they are.
So the Church shouldn't withold the sacraments to anyone for any reason then?
No, I would not say that. If a person believed their own righteousness made them worthy to receive the sacraments, than I would say the sacrament should be withheld.
--------------------
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
Posts: 47 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
But then would that, according to you, also make the Church....er...nevermind! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hugorune
Apprentice
# 17793
|
Posted
I know, Ad Orientum. I'm not very good at this. I passionately believe in open communion and everything implied by that, but I don't think my theology is good enough to properly defend it. I'll work on that - or I may learn something that will change my opinion. We'll see ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
Posts: 47 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Many of the responses here seem to glide over the morally problematic nature of surrogacy, especially when for pay.
I am willing to consider that it may be sinful to essentially rent a woman's womb - perhaps that is degrading to that woman.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
If there is anything I understand about surrogate motherhood it's that it is a very complex issue. I for one wouldn't dare to start discussing it in detail. But the debate on this thread has fortified my dislike for the the traditional idea of 'sin', showing that it is much too one-dimensional to be helpful in a case like this.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
But - as I understand it - the morally problematic nature of surrogacy is not what the thread is about. It's about withholding baptism from a child who did not choose the manner of its birth in order to coerce someone else into doing something.
I agree with churchgeek:
quote:
It's also not going to be easily forgotten that the parents and surrogate were asked to repent for bringing this child into the world. How would any of us feel knowing the church thought we shouldn't have existed? And then that we weren't allowed to be baptized until our parents agreed that we shouldn't have been born? Yikes.
Incidentally, if fertility treatment works the same way in Russia as it does in the UK then the subject line of this thread is inaccurate. The consent of the sperm donor is also required to create an embryo, so the child is being punished for the sins of both/all three parents. Not just the mother/s.
[ 07. January 2014, 10:39: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
It's about withholding baptism from a child who did not choose the manner of its birth....
That would be all of them then.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
