UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote: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."
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote: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."
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?
quote: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.
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!)
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Freaks. Bring the child here, I'll do it. Poor wee thing.
quote:Tangent alert
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. ...
quote: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".
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.
quote: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).
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: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.
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!)
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: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.
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote: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".
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.
quote: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?
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".
quote: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.
With at least one wikipedia articla, HCH asserts:
every child has two (biological) parents.
quote: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).
Originally posted by HCH:
The title of the thread seems odd; every child has two (biological) parents.
quote:Given the recent history of the Synod, I see this conclusion as inevitable.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or does it mean something else, and if so, what - in terms one can understand?
quote: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.
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).
quote: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.
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. ...
quote:Human.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
What's the theological term used to describe someone born of a surrogate mother?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Human.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
What's the theological term used to describe someone born of a surrogate mother?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:That I do not know.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
did the same barrier to ordaining illegitimate men ever exist in the Orthodox Church?
quote:That's the spiritual corruption of most modern churches in a nutshell.
Originally posted by hugorune:
The rest is up to God, who is merciful to the faithful.
quote:This. I find it very odd and unloving.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by hugorune:
quote: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.
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.
quote:How precisely would you go about determining that someone is mortally sinning through unrepentant pride?
Originally posted by hugorune:
When was the last time you saw a church deny sacraments to believers on the basis of unrepentant pride? Never.
quote: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.
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.
quote:I think we have a pretty good example of it when the Church withholds sacraments to show how righteous they are.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:How precisely would you go about determining that someone is mortally sinning through unrepentant pride?
Originally posted by hugorune:
When was the last time you saw a church deny sacraments to believers on the basis of unrepentant pride? Never.
quote:So the Church shouldn't withold the sacraments to anyone for any reason then?
Originally posted by hugorune:
quote:I think we have a pretty good example of it when the Church withholds sacraments to show how righteous they are.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:How precisely would you go about determining that someone is mortally sinning through unrepentant pride?
Originally posted by hugorune:
When was the last time you saw a church deny sacraments to believers on the basis of unrepentant pride? Never.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:So the Church shouldn't withold the sacraments to anyone for any reason then?
Originally posted by hugorune:
quote:I think we have a pretty good example of it when the Church withholds sacraments to show how righteous they are.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:How precisely would you go about determining that someone is mortally sinning through unrepentant pride?
Originally posted by hugorune:
When was the last time you saw a church deny sacraments to believers on the basis of unrepentant pride? Never.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote: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.
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.
quote:That would be all of them then.
Originally posted by Jane R:
It's about withholding baptism from a child who did not choose the manner of its birth....
quote:I think it's a blunt instrument for a nuanced situation. Nonetheless it doesn't stop anyone from getting their baby baptized, as long as they accept the church's teaching that the use of the surrogate was wrong.
Originally posted by Jane R:
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.
quote:And by the same token you'd be "imposing" baptism on the child who did not choose it if you were to go ahead. As with any infant baptism of course. So if you believe in paedo-baptism ISTM that you are always dealing with the choices of more than just the child (or even child+parents) and so there's always an element of one party's actions affecting the others involved. From that point of view the ruling makes sense.
Originally posted by Jane R:
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.
quote:
This concerns not only the question of “surrogate motherhood,” but also any consciously expressed unwillingness to live in a Christian manner .
quote:Granted, but if baptism is barred to children of any parents expressing 'conscious unwillingness to live in a Christian manner' then illegitimate children and children of divorced parents should also be turned away. Heck, if you want to be really picky nobody is worthy to bring a child to baptism - all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. What happens to 'Let the children come to Me' then?
So if you believe in paedo-baptism ISTM that you are always dealing with the choices of more than just the child (or even child+parents) and so there's always an element of one party's actions affecting the others involved.
quote:You assume that a priest who baptizes a prostitute's child does not ask the woman to repent, and that the prostitute does not agree to making an effort to change at the time of the request.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I do understand it, thanks. That's why I mentioned prostitutes. A prostitute who presents her (or his) child for baptism whilst intending to continue in the same job is certainly not conforming to most people's expectations of 'living in a Christian manner'. And in the eyes of some, a remarried divorcee is an unrepentant adulterer.
quote:I would be interested in actual historical facts on this matter. Truly always, everywhere, all churches? Maybe that is true, but I just don't know. What I do know is that the relevant §868 in current RC canon law is wide open to interpretation ("For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required... that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion" ... what provides well-founded hope then?), and it seems that there is quite some variation as to how it is in fact being interpreted. Most comments I have heard seem to indicate that the RCC in North America is a lot stricter about this than the RCC in Europe, see for example this from Canada.
Originally posted by Jane R:
In any case, the church has always been willing to baptise children who are illegitimate or the result of adulterous relationships. Even children of prostitutes. That seems to suggest that the child's acceptance into the church is not dependent on the parents being good obedient clean-living Christians.
quote:I think a Church of England priest would be legally required to baptise the child, if resident in their parish.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are you aware of any such case where a priest (Orthodox or otherwise) had full knowledge that someone was intending to raise a child in a house of prostitution, but baptized that child anyway?
quote:In most cases without "full knowledge" because CofE priests don't ask those sorts of questions due to their requirement to baptize any child within the parish presented to them.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:I think a Church of England priest would be legally required to baptise the child, if resident in their parish.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are you aware of any such case where a priest (Orthodox or otherwise) had full knowledge that someone was intending to raise a child in a house of prostitution, but baptized that child anyway?
quote:I don't know what happens in the Orthodox church nowadays, or even what happens in the RCC, but I get the impression from my reading of history that *in practice*, in the English church at least, most priests would baptise anyone's baby if asked to do so. This may have something to do with the belief that unbaptized babies would go to Limbo.
Are you aware of any such case where a priest (Orthodox or otherwise) had full knowledge that someone was intending to raise a child in a house of prostitution, but baptized that child anyway? Perhaps it does happen but it strikes me as terribly unlikely.
quote:I have only very fleetingly worked with an organization that accompanies (ex-)prostitutes in Brazil so I don't claim expertise, but what I do know is that it is a complex problem where the prostitutes are often as much a victim as anything else. Calling on them to repent seems an extremely inadequate approach to me, much less with their children as some strange kind of hostages.
seekingsister: You assume that a priest who baptizes a prostitute's child does not ask the woman to repent, and that the prostitute does not agree to making an effort to change at the time of the request.
quote:Indeed.
Calling on them to repent seems an extremely inadequate approach to me, much less with their children as some strange kind of hostages.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by ken:
I think a Church of England priest would be legally required to baptise the child, if resident in their parish.
quote:The provisions relating to godparents are that there are to be at least 3 people - two of the same sex as the child and one of the opposite sex, and that they be confirmed. The priest has the authority to water down these requirements to some degree if he sees fit, but cannot be compelled to.
Canon B22:
4. No minister shall refuse or, save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents, delay to baptize any infant within his cure that is brought to the church to be baptized, provided that due notice has been given and the provisions relating to godparents in these Canons are observed.
quote:This suggests that, just perhaps, the priest might have the ability to veto the choice of particular godparents if, for example, they live lives of such notorious ill-repute that they can't provide "the example of their own godly living".
2. The godparents shall be persons who will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care for the children committed to their charge and by the example of their own godly living.
quote:means that is supposed to be a condition precedent, and can be insisted on.
save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents
quote:Pope Francis discusses gay couples
How can we proclaim Christ to a generation that is changing? We must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them...
quote:This might (or might not) allow the priest some leeway. It depends on how flexible are the enforcement mechanisms for "the norms contained in the present document".
In the case when an infant is brought to Church who has been born of a “surrogate mother,” the question of its Baptism can be decided in accordance with the instructions of the diocesan bishop, who is bound to be guided in concrete cases by the norms contained in the present document. The performance by a priest of the sacrament of Baptism in such cases without the blessing of his bishop serves as the basis for applying canonical sanctions to this priest.
quote:That's like saying if I go to work on Yom Kippur it's a deliberate snub of Jews. Gregorian December 25 isn't a holiday for them. Why shouldn't they work on it?
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
If the bishops met to transact legal business on December 25-26, should that be taken as a deliberate snub toward those who use the Gregorian or Revised Julian calendars? Or is that reading too much into it?
quote:That's a deliberate rhetorical confusion of the moral evaluation of the parent's actions and the baby's being, trading on ambiguities in what "right to exist" means. It also simply ignores what the Russian bishops have said about their motivations, and is inconsistent with the provisions they have established (the baby can be baptised, given two different conditions). Silence was the charitable option there, or perhaps just what one hears when eyes are being rolled...
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's been brought up twice but nobody has answered it: the synod's decision is tantamount to telling these parents, "Your baby has no right to exist."
quote:That's your interpretation of it.
Originally posted by Jane R:
No, I don't think it is rhetorical confusion. It is a reasonable conclusion drawn from what the document says. If surrogacy is (always) considered sinful, then the 'true' Christian course for any couple who are unable to have a baby without using a surrogate mother is not to have a baby at all. It's not much of a stretch from there to 'this baby shouldn't exist'. Most people are intelligent enough to make the connection, even if the bishops don't come right out and say it aloud.
quote:You are just perpetuating the rhetorical confusion, which frankly is massively insulting to the bishops (not that they are my bishops, but still...). "This baby should not exist" is true in the sense that (according to the bishops) the baby exists because of sinful actions, and sins should not be committed. "This baby should not exist" is false in the sense that the baby alive now has less of a right to exist than other human beings.
Originally posted by Jane R:
No, I don't think it is rhetorical confusion. It is a reasonable conclusion drawn from what the document says. If surrogacy is (always) considered sinful, then the 'true' Christian course for any couple who are unable to have a baby without using a surrogate mother is not to have a baby at all. It's not much of a stretch from there to 'this baby shouldn't exist'. Most people are intelligent enough to make the connection, even if the bishops don't come right out and say it aloud.
quote:I can understand the concern about wealthy women outsourcing the messy parts of pregnancy by hiring a poorer woman as surrogate. If that is a significant problem in Russia, I can see why the bishops are concerned. However, as several people have already said, surrogacy for profit is illegal in the UK (as is donation of eggs or sperm) and many surrogate mothers enter into the arrangement for altruistic reasons. And if after giving birth they do not wish to hand the baby over to its biological parents, under UK law they don't have to.
One can easily read it as, the sin of using a woman is so significant as to put into question the commitment to Christian faith of the parents who hired her.
quote:Commercial for-profit surrogacy is legal in Russia and it's apparently a popular choice for overseas couples from US, UK because it's cheaper.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I can understand the concern about wealthy women outsourcing the messy parts of pregnancy by hiring a poorer woman as surrogate. If that is a significant problem in Russia, I can see why the bishops are concerned.
quote:That was ... educational. Total costs €36,000 to €60,000. I wonder how much the surrogate mother gets of that? Anyway, the Russian bishops are opposed to surrogacy per se, not (just) because of the potential commercial aspect:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Commercial for-profit surrogacy is legal in Russia and it's apparently a popular choice for overseas couples from US, UK because it's cheaper Russian Surrogacy
quote:
The Basis of the Social Concept XII.4:
«Surrogate motherhood», that is, the bearing of a fertilised ovule by a woman who after the delivery returns the child to the «customers», is unnatural and morally inadmissible even in those cases where it is realised on a non-commercial basis. This method involves the violation of the profound emotional and spiritual intimacy that is established between mother and child already during the pregnancy. «Surrogate motherhood» traumatises both the bearing woman, whose mother’s feelings are trampled upon, and the child who may subsequently experience an identity crisis.
quote:Thank you for finding that out. I didn't know that, and probably would not have known what keywords to google to get it. I found it quite disturbing. It sounds as though, far from being an exotic foreign thing, womb farming is a bit of a growth industry in Russia, probably with westerners, local oligarchs and various clinics exploiting poor girls throughout the towns and villages of Russia.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Commercial for-profit surrogacy is legal in Russia and it's apparently a popular choice for overseas couples from US, UK because it's cheaper.
Russian Surrogacy
quote:I'm in awe of how bravely they have halted this process by not baptizing the children.
Enoch: With that background, I'm even more in sympathy with the Russian bishops.
quote:I was making a point about how the parents feel. This is emotion talk. Logic doesn't enter into it nearly as much as some people might wish.
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's a deliberate rhetorical confusion of the moral evaluation of the parent's actions and the baby's being, trading on ambiguities in what "right to exist" means.
quote:This actually tells in its favor, given the relationship between the ROC and Putin.
It also simply ignores what the Russian bishops have said about their motivations
quote:"Just admit this baby should never have existed, and we'll baptise it."
and is inconsistent with the provisions they have established (the baby can be baptised, given two different conditions).
quote:We have a pot/kettle problem here.
Silence was the charitable option there, or perhaps just what one hears when eyes are being rolled...
quote:That's a daft comment, of course. Just because one cannot stop something does not mean that one has to condone it by one's own actions.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I'm in awe of how bravely they have halted this process by not baptizing the children.
Enoch: With that background, I'm even more in sympathy with the Russian bishops.
quote:
The comment from the head of the Patriarchy Commission for Family Motherhood and Childhood, Dmitry Smirnov, came after Russian mass media reported that in September 64-year-old Russian pop star Alla Pugachova and her 37-year-old husband Maksim Galkin had two children born through surrogate motherhood.
“I would ban this, of course. We can see that a bad example is contagious,” the senior church representative was quoted as saying by Interfax. “This is mutiny against God, this is very happy fascism with a contract, the money and confiscation of a child.”
quote:Fine. But Church doctrine and discipline cannot be based simply on sentiment, however heartfelt. And I would suggest that the best way of getting this ruling changed, if one wishes that, is not to go on about the hurt feelings of the parents. Frankly, most sinners have hurt feelings when being called on their sins, and I doubt that the Russian bishops will be shocked by yet another instance of that. Rather it is precisely the logical argument presented on this thread, namely that it is unfair to single out surrogacy as evil that must be repented of when many other sins of parents are being overlooked systematically, which might have some impact.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was making a point about how the parents feel. This is emotion talk. Logic doesn't enter into it nearly as much as some people might wish.
quote:That's simply an argumentum ad hominem. Also, you are in communion with these bishops, correct? Can you point to a contrary ruling of your bishops? Or are you now suggesting that the bishops in Orthodoxy have no teaching authority any longer?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This actually tells in its favor, given the relationship between the ROC and Putin.
It also simply ignores what the Russian bishops have said about their motivations
quote:More like: "Admit that this baby should never have existed according to the Orthodox faith you share, and we'll accept your claim that you will raise the baby as Orthodox, and baptise it into the Orthodox community."
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Just admit this baby should never have existed, and we'll baptise it."
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
IngoB - apparently the outrage was sparked by a 64 year old Russian celeb having twins with her much younger husband via surrogate.
Orthodox Church slams surrogacy
quote:True. This wasn't meant to lay forth a basis for episcopal decision-making on terms of praxis. (Indeed I'm not at all sure how it could have been taken to be such, but there you go.) It was meant to portray what the parents may feel like they are being asked to do when they are asked to "repent."
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Fine. But Church doctrine and discipline cannot be based simply on sentiment, however heartfelt.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was making a point about how the parents feel. This is emotion talk. Logic doesn't enter into it nearly as much as some people might wish.
quote:As noted, that's not the reason I brought that up.
And I would suggest that the best way of getting this ruling changed, if one wishes that, is not to go on about the hurt feelings of the parents.
quote:I would suggest that "having hurt feelings" and "being told your child doesn't deserve to exist" are not exactly analogous. You're trivializing something that to a parent could be crushing. I find it difficult to believe anybody could reduce the latter to "you have hurt feelings." It rather feels disingenuous.
Frankly, most sinners have hurt feelings when being called on their sins, and I doubt that the Russian bishops will be shocked by yet another instance of that.
quote:No, it's simply an insult. An argumetum ad hominem is by definition an argument. I wasn't making an argument here, just giving my opinion about those particular bishops and how much I trust what they say about their own motivations. Knowing how they fawn over Putin, in the name of Orthodoxy, gives me a certain skepticism about what they claim to be motivated by.
quote:That's simply an argumentum ad hominem.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This actually tells in its favor, given the relationship between the ROC and Putin.
It also simply ignores what the Russian bishops have said about their motivations
quote:Yes, no, no. What does this have to do with the argument? It seems rather a non sequitur.
Also, you are in communion with these bishops, correct? Can you point to a contrary ruling of your bishops? Or are you now suggesting that the bishops in Orthodoxy have no teaching authority any longer?
quote:Potayto.
quote:More like: "Admit that this baby should never have existed according to the Orthodox faith you share, and we'll accept your claim that you will raise the baby as Orthodox, and baptise it into the Orthodox community."
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Just admit this baby should never have existed, and we'll baptise it."
quote:How many bishops have personally experienced the 'profound emotional and spiritual intimacy' of pregnancy? Or is this yet another example of the male priesthood romanticizing motherhood?
This method involves the violation of the profound emotional and spiritual intimacy that is established between mother and child already during the pregnancy.
quote:And your latest description "just admit this baby should never have existed, and we'll baptise it" is fair enough, given that you understand it as "potayto" to mine. We can now discuss whether the Russian bishops are correct factually. We can also discuss whether accepting that they are correct factually (at least for the sake of argument), their actions are prudent pastorally and politically. What we cannot do however is to say that because we see pastoral or political issues they must have their facts wrong.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It was meant to portray what the parents may feel like they are being asked to do when they are asked to "repent."
quote:First, you keep changing your statement about the baby. "Should never have existed" is not the same as "does not deserve to exist". If this is not intentional rhetorical trickery, then please think carefully about what you claim the bishops are saying to the parents and stick to one thing. It is rather annoying having to update my agreement or disagreement with your assessment every other post. Second, I did not intend to indicate some kind of upper limit to how much hurt was being caused here. I simply intended to state in what way the hurt was being caused. Bones were not broken, rather feeling were being hurt. That's all. If you want to say instead that the parents are being "emotionally traumatised", for example, then that is no skin off my nose.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would suggest that "having hurt feelings" and "being told your child doesn't deserve to exist" are not exactly analogous. You're trivializing something that to a parent could be crushing. I find it difficult to believe anybody could reduce the latter to "you have hurt feelings." It rather feels disingenuous.
quote:"This actually tells in its favor, given X." is an argument, however minimalistic. If X is a personal insult, then it becomes an an argumentum ad hominem. And you continue along these lines here, by putting the motivations of the Russian bishops in question. "Argument" means more than just "logical deduction". There is no reason at all why we should discuss the relationship of the Russian bishops to Putin here. They have argued their case with no reference to Putin or the Russian state, therefore we can and should address their argument on their terms.
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, it's simply an insult. An argumetum ad hominem is by definition an argument. I wasn't making an argument here, just giving my opinion about those particular bishops and how much I trust what they say about their own motivations. Knowing how they fawn over Putin, in the name of Orthodoxy, gives me a certain skepticism about what they claim to be motivated by.
quote:I'm sorry, that may just be my Catholicism coming through. We believe that people who are in communion with each other need to agree at least officially on important matters of faith and morals. If the RC bishops of Russia made a major ruling on faith and morals that I find highly problematic, then I would consider it very pressing to get this sorted out at the official level. Because otherwise the assumption of coherent faith and morals across the communion means that this ruling will apply to me as well. Obviously, the way the RCC is organised, I would mostly look to Rome for a "global" clarification. But absent that, I would look to "my" local bishops for comment. What I would not do is to set this aside with a shrug of my shoulders, or complain about it as one does about foreign affairs. I cannot set aside the actions of any RC bishop anywhere like that, because they all contribute to one and the same teaching office of the Church.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Yes, no, no. What does this have to do with the argument? It seems rather a non sequitur.
Also, you are in communion with these bishops, correct? Can you point to a contrary ruling of your bishops? Or are you now suggesting that the bishops in Orthodoxy have no teaching authority any longer?
quote:I'm not Orthodox, but as far as RCs go, you are ultimately bound by your conscience alone. However, it is one's duty to inform that conscience properly; and official teachings of the Church, to which bishops can contribute, are privileged by faith in providing such information with various levels of authority. Thus a bishop officially teaching against what your conscience currently tells you is like receiving a piece of new evidence apparently contrary to what you held true so far. It is not clear that your conscience must change, but it is clear that you must worry about that. The more authoritative the teaching, the more so.
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I don't understand how these things work. Is an Orthodox believer under an obligation to agree with a Bishop even when they (the believer) thinks they (the Bishop) are fundamentally wrong about something?
quote:Is it your opinion that a medical doctor must have suffered every disease she is ready to treat, because otherwise she does not have the necessary experience to do anything about it?
Originally posted by Jane R:
How many bishops have personally experienced the 'profound emotional and spiritual intimacy' of pregnancy? Or is this yet another example of the male priesthood romanticizing motherhood?
quote:This is not what the bishops themselves say they are doing. Please present some kind of argument, rather than mere assertion, why you think that they are lying.
Originally posted by Jane R:
And once again; if they believe baptism is important, why withhold it from the child in order to punish the parents?
quote:That's an interesting question, and I would be keen to hear an answer from an Orthodox. For RCs, in danger of death such concerns about providing sacraments have to yield. However, there is of course a risk that the child dies unexpectedly and too rapidly to provide an "emergency sacrament". Such risk however is considered to be on the heads of the parents. The Church cannot accommodate every sin just to protect all innocents. Parents do have responsibility for their children.
Originally posted by Jane R:
What does the Orthodox Church think will happen to the child's soul if it dies before it is old enough to choose to be baptised by itself?
quote:I'm not sure what you would appeal to to determine if a ruling on morals was "factually" correct. Do you mean if it follows from other moral teachings of the church? You can't get an "ought" from an "is." Morals aren't matters of "fact."
Originally posted by IngoB:
We can now discuss whether the Russian bishops are correct factually.
quote:That's rather what I thought I was doing here. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough?
We can also discuss whether accepting that they are correct factually (at least for the sake of argument), their actions are prudent pastorally and politically.
quote:Yes. Thank you. I have agreed. You can stop saying it. Really. Stop. Now.
"Parents unhappy therefore bishops wrong" is simply not a valid argument here.
quote:Not logically, no. But I thought I had made it clear I wasn't talking about logic here. See previous comment.
First, you keep changing your statement about the baby. "Should never have existed" is not the same as "does not deserve to exist".
quote:It was far from clear what you were intending.
Second, I did not intend to indicate some kind of upper limit to how much hurt was being caused here. I simply intended to state in what way the hurt was being caused. Bones were not broken, rather feeling were being hurt.
quote:Chivalrous of you.
If you want to say instead that the parents are being "emotionally traumatised", for example, then that is no skin off my nose.
quote:I just told you it wasn't. Do you want to tell me other contents of my mind I'm not aware of myself?
"This actually tells in its favor, given X." is an argument, however minimalistic.
quote:If you don't think their character has bearing on their decisions in moral areas, I'd say you are deluded about how human beings actually operate. This seems to me the problem some Catholics have who can't understand why the pedophile scandals have made people less trusting of the Catholic Church's moral authority.
There is no reason at all why we should discuss the relationship of the Russian bishops to Putin here. They have argued their case with no reference to Putin or the Russian state, therefore we can and should address their argument on their terms.
quote:It is one of the greatest strengths and also one of the greatest weaknesses of Orthodoxy that we don't have this lockstep mentality. The autocephalous churches truly are autocephalous.
We believe that people who are in communion with each other need to agree at least officially on important matters of faith and morals.
quote:I disagree, one can get an "ought" from an "is" and morals are matters of fact. But I actually did not want to make a natural moral law argument here. I just sloppily used "factually" because it is a bit difficult to find a single word for the part of this that is not pastoral / political: doctrinally sound, logically coherent, practically discernible, scripturally proven, authoritatively decided... all that sort of stuff in due measure put together. The sort of thing one thinks about when one is not just considering one concrete case, or worried about the public impact.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure what you would appeal to to determine if a ruling on morals was "factually" correct. Do you mean if it follows from other moral teachings of the church? You can't get an "ought" from an "is." Morals aren't matters of "fact."
quote:Perhaps I simply do not think that one can discuss the pastoral / political side usefully without considering the "factual" side carefully first. I'm also not just talking to you on this thread, and it is quite possible that on occasion I simply write in a wider context than just addressing your concerns.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's rather what I thought I was doing here. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough?
quote:I wasn't complaining about the logic, but about having to update my response every time you change your claim about what the parents may feel.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not logically, no. But I thought I had made it clear I wasn't talking about logic here. See previous comment.
quote:Well, that is fair enough. However, this sort of prejudice is useful for times when a judgement is needed instantly, or perhaps when one cannot gather all the information required. It's then a way to make a "quick and dirty guess". Here however we are having a leisurely discussion based on a considerable range of source materials, with the internet being freely available to gather more information. There is then simply no excuse for shooting from the hip. We can evaluate the statements and actions of these bishops carefully, and we should be able to discern the truth. Or at least we should be able to discern the truth much better than just by saying "cronies of Putin are likely to make immoral decisions". Perhaps they are, but whether they did so in this case is what we are discussing here.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you don't think their character has bearing on their decisions in moral areas, I'd say you are deluded about how human beings actually operate. This seems to me the problem some Catholics have who can't understand why the pedophile scandals have made people less trusting of the Catholic Church's moral authority.
quote:I can see all too clearly how this is a weakness, but in what way is this a strength, precisely?
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is one of the greatest strengths and also one of the greatest weaknesses of Orthodoxy that we don't have this lockstep mentality. The autocephalous churches truly are autocephalous.
quote:For one thing, if one church goes off the rails, the others can act as a corrective. Think Borgia Popes.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I can see all too clearly how this is a weakness, but in what way is this a strength, precisely?
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is one of the greatest strengths and also one of the greatest weaknesses of Orthodoxy that we don't have this lockstep mentality. The autocephalous churches truly are autocephalous.
quote:I don't see how, at least not how in any systemic way. After all, your bishops are not particularly concerned by the crap that the bishops of Russia are spouting (assuming that it is crap for the sake of argument). After all, that is an autocephalous church to you. And if your bishops do make a decision that is contrary, then the Russian bishops need not be overly concerned with that either - after all, you are an autocephalous church to them, so what does it matter if you disagree?
Originally posted by mousethief:
For one thing, if one church goes off the rails, the others can act as a corrective. Think Borgia Popes.
quote:I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but would assume that the answer is yes. We are baptised on our belief in Jesus Christ, not our opinion about something else.
Originally posted by stonespring:
If an adult is baptized but does not intend to believe, for example, that surrogacy is sinful, is his/her baptism valid?
quote:Again, I would have thought, obviously, yes. I would have thought everyone is agreed that baptism is objective.
If an infant is baptized but her/his parents do not believe that surrogacy is sinful and do not intend to teach the child that, is the infant's baptism valid? ....
quote:I do apologise. What I should have said was this:
This is not what the bishops themselves say they are doing. Please present some kind of argument, rather than mere assertion, why you think that they are lying.
quote:Baptism is a conscious decision to follow Christ, and to join His community, the Church. For Orthodox, as for RCs, this decision brings with it a wide range of beliefs, duties and consequences that will last for a lifetime. Baptism is not some isolated sign, but an entry point to a massive superstructure of faith within which one will move henceforth. An adult convert will have to take all this on explicitly. In having their children baptised the parents (and the godparents) basically tell the Church: if you will let the little one enter now, we promise to make sure that this child will take all these things on as well, just bit by bit as its capabilities grow, through our guidance. That children can be baptised is an accommodation by the Church - the Church trusts parents (and godparents) there to take over her role in guarding the entry point to her mysteries.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Why are the bishops withholding baptism from the child in order to force the parents to agree with them on the issue of surrogacy? Or does the end (bringing the parents into line) justify the means (risking the baby's salvation)?
quote:This only makes sense if the RCC or Orthodoxy believes that unbaptized children are almost certainly going to Heaven if they die before the age of reason. I have heard nothing to indicate that this is the case. All I have heard about is hoping in God's mercy in such cases.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Baptism is a conscious decision to follow Christ, and to join His community, the Church. For Orthodox, as for RCs, this decision brings with it a wide range of beliefs, duties and consequences that will last for a lifetime. Baptism is not some isolated sign, but an entry point to a massive superstructure of faith within which one will move henceforth. An adult convert will have to take all this on explicitly. In having their children baptised the parents (and the godparents) basically tell the Church: if you will let the little one enter now, we promise to make sure that this child will take all these things on as well, just bit by bit as its capabilities grow, through our guidance. That children can be baptised is an accommodation by the Church - the Church trusts parents (and godparents) there to take over her role in guarding the entry point to her mysteries.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Why are the bishops withholding baptism from the child in order to force the parents to agree with them on the issue of surrogacy? Or does the end (bringing the parents into line) justify the means (risking the baby's salvation)?
If there is no reasonable hope that the (god)parents will follow up on these promises, then it is natural for the Church to revert to the proper process: wait until the child is old enough to ask for entry in its own right. Whether using a surrogate mother is sufficient to abandon such hope can certainly be contended. I'm not necessarily convinced of that myself, in particular in the light of the many other failures of (god)parents that the Church overlooks without apparently losing this hope. But the principle of withholding baptism if no faithful upbringing can be expected is sound in my eyes, in principle.
Really, this is no different than not simply baptising everybody who wanders in from the street and asks for it. Or for that matter, why not make one big ceremony to baptise the entire world virtually, and be done with it? Does an adult not have an immortal soul? Is an adult not in danger of eternal doom? Yet we (or at least certainly the RCC and the Orthodox) have never handed out baptism willy-nilly. The Church demands from adults conviction in order to enter, and so it does from infants - only there through the agency of their (god)parents over time. And just as an adult can be denied baptism, unless approaching death makes charity trump faith, so for infants.
quote:But there has been very famous (even celebrated) misuse of the sacrament of Baptism - for example: the coerced baptism of the city of Kiev in the Dnieper River at the order of Vladimir the Great. I find no trouble in believing that any of the people in the paintings, frescoes, mosaics, etc., of that event - many of which are displayed proudly in churches - who did not really consent to adopt the Orthodox faith in their hearts when they had to jump in the river were not validly baptized. What about the infants of those people who also went into the river?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yet we (or at least certainly the RCC and the Orthodox) have never handed out baptism willy-nilly. The Church demands from adults conviction in order to enter, and so it does from infants - only there through the agency of their (god)parents over time.
quote:Then you shouldn't allow infant baptism at all.
Baptism is a conscious decision to follow Christ, and to join His community, the Church.
quote:Correct, at least as far as the RCC is concerned (I do not know what the Orthodox say about the eternal fate of unbaptised children). Yet there is a balance here between bringing salvation to all and keeping the Church intact as a community of faith.
Originally posted by stonespring:
This only makes sense if the RCC or Orthodoxy believes that unbaptized children are almost certainly going to Heaven if they die before the age of reason. I have heard nothing to indicate that this is the case. All I have heard about is hoping in God's mercy in such cases.
quote:Hence in danger of death of the infant can be baptised licitly even against the will of the parents. The risk of the infant dying before it can be properly baptised is on the heads of the (god)parents. They can, of course, baptise the child themselves if they find this necessary but nevertheless are unwilling to accept their duties as Christian parents. The efficacy of such a private baptism will be judged by God, but it certainly can be valid.
Originally posted by stonespring:
This means that to refuse baptism to an infant is to put the child's salvation in jeopardy, arguably in greater jeopardy than one would be doing than by allowing (god)parents who seem not intent on raising their kids with orthodox Christian beliefs to have their (god)children baptised.
quote:That is difficult to answer. The graces poured out in baptism must be received to become efficacious, and it is unlikely that a child raised apart from the Church will be able to realise the graces of baptism fully. At the age of reason, the child will start accumulating sin with no education about that, and indeed possibly in the false hope that the baptism once received protects forevermore against sin, or in the false belief that Christianity has nothing further to offer. The only advantage would presumably be that the child would be free from original sin, and thus heaven-bound if it died before it was old enough to commit actual sin. This is "better" than just hoping that God will be merciful to unbaptised children, I guess. As for the community of faith, it may become diluted by people who belong to it merely in the sense of a formal admission event once upon a time. These people are then a false witness to the world what being a Christian is about, and internal to the Church allowing such consequence-free baptisms to be common may encourage lukewarmness in the faith. It is in my opinion unclear where the optimal balance lies.
Originally posted by stonespring:
If the parents never take the kid to church again after baptism - is the kid or the Christian community more harmed than if the kid was denied baptism in the first place?
quote:The point is not to pressure the parents into repenting out of fear for their child. The point is that their repentance would indicate their readiness to provide a faithful upbringing. The parent's (or other guardian's) faith is important for making the child become a Christian, and baptism is about becoming a Christian. Once more, I'm personally not convinced that using surrogacy is severe enough to declare the parents unsuitable. That's a different, "practical" discussion, and the Church tends to take a very lenient approach in most cases. So why not here? But I certainly agree to the principle that parents can be unsuitable for raising a Christian.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I don't think so and think the reverse is true - it is much more harmful to the child and causes much greater scandal to deny baptism to infants based on the moral decisions of the parents and their willingness to repent of them.
quote:Coerced baptisms are invalid, no matter how much they may be celebrated by some people. Or perhaps one could say it like this: even the most basic and immediate graces of baptism cannot be received by a mind set against them.
Originally posted by stonespring:
But there has been very famous (even celebrated) misuse of the sacrament of Baptism - for example: the coerced baptism of the city of Kiev in the Dnieper River at the order of Vladimir the Great.
quote:I guess they were valid, in the "going to heaven if they died shortly thereafter" sense. Infants cannot set their mind for or against baptism, and the basic and immediate graces presumably were received. However, if in the following they had a non-Christian upbringing by parents resenting the coerced baptism, then this is an extreme version of the case discussed above. I expect no good to come from this, neither for the child nor for the Church.
Originally posted by stonespring:
What about the infants of those people who also went into the river?
quote:The end does not justify the means, so these were evil acts that would not have received God's blessing, much less a miracle (unless perhaps as suitable to God's mercy, as in some infant about to die). God may have worked good from this evil in the long run, but that gives glory to God, it does not justify the evil.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Were all the people coerced into baptism miraculously given faith so that it really can be celebrated as a good example of Christian ministry? Or does it not really matter because it resulted in the greater spread of Orthodoxy?
quote:That it is possible for an infant to be baptised still relies on the conscious decision of someone, who takes responsibility before God that this specific child shall become part of the Body of Christ. In the general run of things this someone should be the parents, though it could be someone else. Christianity does allow for one person to stand in for another before God in matters of salvation, most notably in Christ standing in for all of us.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Then you shouldn't allow infant baptism at all.
quote:That's half the question. The other half is, is it necessary to believe surrogacy is wrong to live a Christian life? This seems to me the crux of the matter, and nobody seems to want to address it.
Originally posted by Enoch:
The actual question though, isn't about validity, but whether it is a good practice or an abuse for churches to baptise people who don't seem to intend to live a Christian life or bring up their child to.
quote:This may be slightly tangential, but there are two serious errors here, which invariably lead to seriously erroneous conclusions.
Originally posted by IngoB:
... The graces poured out in baptism must be received to become efficacious, and it is unlikely that a child raised apart from the Church will be able to realise the graces of baptism fully...
quote:I can see that, but I don't think that is the question the Bishops are addressing. What they are saying seems to me to be more like, 'if you can't see that surrogacy is wrong, we'd construe that as indicating that you don't take faith seriously - in effect, it's a symptom that you are expecting to have God on your terms rather than his'.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's half the question. The other half is, is it necessary to believe surrogacy is wrong to live a Christian life? This seems to me the crux of the matter, and nobody seems to want to address it.
quote:I can't slide a knife between this and what I said.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can see that, but I don't think that is the question the Bishops are addressing. What they are saying seems to me to be more like, 'if you can't see that surrogacy is wrong, we'd construe that as indicating that you don't take faith seriously - in effect, it's a symptom that you are expecting to have God on your terms rather than his'.