I have previously mentioned that there are clear modern Orthodox statements against abortion. However, one of my favorite statements is actually not a statement. It is an amicus curiae brief filed by the Orthodox in this country before the Supreme Court in 1988. You can find a full copy of that brief here.
I like that particular statement because while it does use judicial language, it does not use complex theological language. It communicates in language that many would understand our beliefs and our united statements on the issue of abortion. And, back 24 years ago, it disputes in coherent and powerful language many of the deceptive arguments that are still found today. I urge you to read the brief, among the facts that it documents is that the Early Church Fathers were opposed to abortion and had already considered various of the supposedly modern arguments:
Among the earliest testimonies that fetal development was irrelevant is that of St. Basil the Great, who wrote that “any hairsplitting distinction as to its being formed or unformed is inadmissible with us.” He also condemned suppliers of abortifacients, regardless of the stage of pregnancy: “‘Those who give potions for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers, as are those who take potions which kill the child.”
St. Basil’s brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-394), saw the fetus as a complete human being from the time of conception, and specifically rejected theories based upon formation or quickening: “There is no question about that which is bred in the uterus, both growing, and moving from place to place. It remains, therefore, that we must think that the point of commencement of existence is one and the same for body and soul.” Even Tertullian of Carthage (c.160-c.230), a prominent Latin ecclesiastical writer who seemed to accept the formed/unformed distinction as a biological matter, dismissed its moral importance: “Abortion is a precipitation of murder, nor does it matter whether or not one takes a life when formed, or drives it away when forming, for he is also a man who is about to be one.”
More than that, the Church codified that belief in its canon law:
The canon law of the ancient Church, still in effect in the Orthodox Church today, is entirely consistent with the foregoing exposition of theological, patristic, and scriptural evidence. The first canonical pronouncement specifically on abortion was that of the regional Council of Elvira, Spain (c.303 A.D.), imposing life-long excommunication. In 314-315 A.D., the regional Council of Ancyra adopted Canon 21:
Regarding women who become prostitutes and kill their babies, and who make it their business to concoct abortives, the former rule barred them for life from communion, and they are left without recourse. But, having found a more philanthropic alternative, we have fixed the penalty at ten years, in accordance with the fixed degrees.
The reference to prostitutes attests to the Fathers’ recognition that abortion was only resorted to by women in the most desperate social circumstances. Three centuries into the Christian era, abortion was unthinkable to the broad mass of Christian people; canon law was adopted which lightened the penalty imposed upon those most in need of mercy. More importantly, the “former rule,” imposing life-long excommunication, is Apostolic Canon 66, which pertains to homicide. The fact that for centuries the Church treated abortion at any stage of pregnancy as homicide, without regard to fetal development, is indicative of the illusory nature of the formed/ unformed distinction.
And finally:
Historic Christianity recognized conception as the time at which life and soul were united, and regarded abortion at any stage of pregnancy as homicide. Though the Orthodox Church, for historical reasons relating to its organizational and doctrinal continuity with historic Christianity, is more acutely aware of this fact, this should not be taken as sectarian pleading. Rather, it is a unique witness to an older and sounder tradition that is our common heritage. The fact that the theological writings of Christian antiquity were formulated by men with little understanding of biology, but whose views are entirely compatible with our modern understanding, is further testament to their moral perspicacity.
The brief goes on to speak of the errors that were made by the court in 1972. Among them was an over-reliance on Aristotelian thought, a problem which unfortunately has also infected Roman Catholicism and some Evangelicals with regards to marriage and birth control and similar matters.
Nevertheless, having said that, please do read the entire amicus curiae brief filed by the Orthodox back then. It is important that you clearly understand the Eastern arguments that are being made in that brief.
===MORE TO COME===
And it might be interesting to compare this with what the Fathers taught about soldiers killing in war.
Many thanks for the quotes from our Fathers. These are invaluable. The one item that I would hope the Orthodox church is clear on is that if a woman repents of this is, there is immediate absolution and ten year ban from Holy Communion. When one repents and makes confession the IMMEDIATE response of the church should be “I forgive you all your sins” and at that moment is done in heaven even as it is done on earth.
Oh….I made a couple grammatical mistakes above, important ones. I meant to say “if a woman repents of this there is immediate absolution and NO ten year ban from communion.Sorry!
The bans were always to be applied with compassion. Saint Gregory the Great counsels priests to be cautious not to apply discipline in such a way that it would damage the soul that is repenting.
Does this mean that the extended ban is still in play even when there is repentance and absolution has been given? If so this is yet another reason why I will not be Orthodox. When a person asks forgiveness it is given and forgiven means forgiven and I see no way that I can keep a repentant forgiven soul from the Body and Blood of Christ which they so much need at that particular point. Punishing the repentant after they are absolved is hard to justify.
Well, has one of your children done something that has “driven” you (GRIN) to both forgive him/her and yet to ground them or exercise some other form of discipline to ensure that the lesson sinks in? The East thinks in terms of healing and family, not in terms of jurisprudence and penal sentences.