www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Contraception

Dear Latin Trad,

Your quote from Augustine clearly shows how the modern Catholic teaching/instruction regarding NFP is in complete contradiction with his opinion. Thank God that it is ONLY his opinion and not the dogma of the universal Church!

If his opinion is correct, then no attempt at avoiding conception is permissable under any circumstances. Black and white.

One might even then go to the logical sequiter that conjugal relations which do not specifically aim to conceive a child are immoral. But I thought that they did away with that one a while ago.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Ghazar,

Thanks for your replies.

I certainly agree that any use of non-abortafacient artificial contraceptives out of a sense of greed, lust, selfishness, parsimony, etc. is not an acceptable use. I really only came up with one example of a situation that may invite acceptance under ikonomia, and that was to avoid a perceived temptation to adultery, a mortal sin.

I don't know if I would ascribe to the approach that "universal assent of the fathers" = "dogma" anymore than the "universal assent of the council" = "dogma." As we know the worshipping Church must also assent! After all, we've had councils that were reversed. Scripture, however, may not be reversed or added upon.

I'm not saying that we may ignore the fathers or the canons, but that we understand them in their context and, in the case of the fathers, as fallible. (Everybody's fallible when discussing doctrine, right? )

An example of this is the prohibition for a bishop to ride on a horse. The canon is written in the age where the horse was THE symbol of temporal, military-backed power. After all, a horse is primarily an animal bred for war! The canon doesn't insist that the bishop ride a donkey, but the implication is the disassociation from the symbol of temporal, military-backed power (my kingdom is not of this world).

So today, interpreting the canon for the year 2003, we may rightfully expect the bishop to avoid riding a horse, since kings and queens still strut about while mounted upon them, but also to avoid the black, bullet-proof, lengthened Cadillacs of the presidential sort. Even in communist/socialist countries, their dictators were riding in sleek black Cadillacs. It is a new symbol of temporal, military-backed power and the canon addresses it, by interpretation.

With the fathers, in relation to this subject (contraception), we need to keep in mind that the great majority of methods of birth control were abortafacient, even if they themselves were not sure of this one way or another.

And as I asked before, did they condemn natural family planning and the spacing of children at healthy intervals? And if they did not, why?
Augustine apparantly did. But the Eastern fathers, were they so severe in their opinions?

Why is there no canon? This is a BIG QUESTION MARK?

Of course, one could respond that the breast-feeding of children naturally spaces out the conception of subsequent children, so that other methods (rythym) were not necessary. But the fact is that these two methods existed, were well-known, and probably widely-used. Did they (the fathers) condemn them in the same way as they condemned the oral contraceptives, potions, etc? Did they tell couples where the mother was breast-feeding to avoid conjugal relations since no child could be conceived?

[On Onan, I can only offer my own exegesis of his sin. Although I would consult one or two books, they, like I, are modern.]

In Christ,
Andrew

No, No, No, No, No. Read carefully: On contraception he wrote, "Relations with one's wife when conception is deliberately prevented are as unlawful and impure as the conduct of Onan who was slain" (Radio Replies Vol.1-#1305). In NFP, conception is not "deliberately prevented" IN THE RELATIONS, but by the LACK OF RELATIONS during the fertile periods. The relations during the infertile time are completely natural--nothing about the relations "prevents" conception; the woman does not conceive because of the natural stage of her cycle.

There is a "difference in kind" between selective abstinence and condomistic intercourse. The former can be done for grave reasons ONLY; the latter is judged by the Old and New Testaments, by the Fathers, and by the Universal Tradition of the Church to be a grave sin. Not to mention the Magisterium under Pius XI & Paul VI who were EMPHATICALLY seconded by Patriarch Athanagoras of Constantinople.

I have no idea why people can't see this. Please be attentive to the difference between abstinence and unrestricted relations-without-consequences.

Respectfully,
LatinTrad

Double post.

Dear Latin Trad,

I stand corrected by your post. You are correct in what you say one may extract from the English translation of Augustine and I will try to pay closer attention next time.

As you know, Augustine is not an Eastern favorite and perhaps I read in prejudicial way.

I had been told, perhaps erroneously, that at one time the Latin Church taught that any conjugal marital relations that failed to have conception as the primary goal were inherently sinful.

It may just have been anti-Latin propaganda.

Others have told me that that is no longer taught, or certainly not in the same way. Would you summarize the current Latin teaching and how it relates with NFP.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

If I may ask your indulgence once more and (to save time trying to re-type this all) allow me to quote from the study I did on this topic:

CHAPTER FIVE: Application and Conclusion

In light of this evidence, we Eastern Christians must beware lest we become worthy of the condemnation of St. Paul who wrote �For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths� (2 Tim. 4:3-4). Turning away, rather, from those teaching erroneous doctrines, we must face the truth about contraception and its incompatibility with Orthodox Christianity. Once we acknowledge it is sinful, we can then consider the practical application of this doctrine in the Eastern Christian�s life. The question is, �How do we live this truth and remain ever faithful to it?� There is a clear way to do so. To understand this, let us consider a few preliminary points.

First, as we have seen, for two thousand years the Catholic Church, East and West, has held the same consistent doctrine on contraception: that it is a sinful violation of the Word of God. This is the first point we must be clear on: artificial birth control is not a legitimate option from the consistent historical Orthodox Christian understanding.

A second point is that among the early Fathers there were two views regarding the correct intention for engaging in marital relations. One view stated that marital relations were lawful only if sought for the purpose of procreation. The other view stated that marital relations were lawful not only if sought for procreation but also if engaged in for the good and communion of the couple. In fact, it is this second view probably being taken up by those today who are trying to justify the use of contraception. Yet, we must not make their mistake. As it has been shown above, these Fathers who held this second view still clearly condemned contraception -as did all the Church Fathers who addressed the issue.

In this second view the marital act is for pro-creation and the salvation of the partners. Marital relations are not to be used in a way which would isolate one of these aspects from the other. It was not an �either/or� view, choosing either procreation or companionship, but rather a �both or neither� view which maintained the couple�s intention could be solely for companionship but the act must still be open to procreation. Noonan gives us a further explanation of this view from its chief proponents, the Latin Father, Lactantius and the Greek Father, St. John Chrysostom:

�In the late third century Lactantius gave value to the Pauline purpose of intercourse as remedy for incontinence (1 Cor. 7:5). He wrote, �Whoever cannot control his affections, let him keep them within the limits of a lawful bed.� The passage by itself would be ambiguous, but Lactantius went on to discuss intercourse in pregnancy. God has made other female animals reject their mates when pregnant, but He �has made woman suffer her husband lest, when their wives repel them, husbands be driven by lust to seek elsewhere and so doing not keep the glory of chastity� (Divine Institutes 6.23.13,26). Based on Lactantius� other writings, Noonan notes it is obvious that, �Lactantius would have rejected any intentional frustration of the normal purpose [of intercourse, i.e. pro-creation].�

Noonan also records,

�In the fourth century, St. John Chrysostom defended the Pauline view... preaching at Constantinople, Chrysostom taught, �There are two reasons why marriage was instituted, that we may live chastely and that we may become parents.� Today, after the Resurrection, a Christian may become a parent spiritually, �so there is one occasion for marriage, that we may not commit fornication� (On those Words of the Apostle, �On Account of Fornication,� PG 51:213). In taking this view, Chrysostom indicated that intercourse in old age is not blamable, although it is presumably not procreative; intercourse in pregnancy and by the sterile are implicitly justified by his doctrine.� (Contraception, p.78)

St. Chrysostom also states that the purpose of marriage is �for companionship and the procreation of children� (Homily 5 on 1 Thessalonians, PG 62:426). Noonan explains how the purpose of intercourse is summed up by the great �Golden-Mouthed.� �Boldly, without nuances, Chrysostom stated a belief which will be hidden in many Christian views of marital intercourse. The generative act is sacral. To interfere with it -so runs the implicit corollary here- would be to attack the work of God... Chrysostom regards contraception as worse than homicide, a mutilation of nature.� (Contraception, p. 78-79).

This second view, therefore, if contemplated, presents for us a rule to be followed. Sex may be engaged in not only for the intention of procreation but also for the good, companionship, and communion of the couple. But, this can only be done in a way that does not frustrate either end or purpose of marital intercourse, the unitive or pro-creative. This view, manifested by these two Fathers of East and West, happens to be the precise one taken up and affirmed by the Pope of Rome, Paul VI, (of blessed memory) in his encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (A.D. 1968). Keeping in mind that the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras, declared this encyclical to be the authentic doctrine shared by the Orthodox, we can use it to gain insights into the practical application of this doctrine for all Eastern Christians. A key observation in this encyclical offered by the Pope of Rome is the acknowledgment of the legitimacy -for just reasons- of the couple�s use of the wife�s infertile periods to space or postpone the conception of additional children. This is based on the scientific fact that a woman is fertile and able to conceive only a few days per month. By identifying these days, a couple can avoid relations and pregnancy.

In a pastoral letter on artificial contraception, the Roman Catholic Archbishop Flavin of Lincoln Nebraska explained the principal of using natural methods of regulating birth. The Archbishop stated, "While artificial contraception is always immoral, there is a morally acceptable way by which married couples may space the births of their children. For good and sufficient reasons, spouses may regulate births by abstaining from the marital act during the wife's easily identified fertile periods. This practice is known as Natural Family Planning. Recent scientific research has so refined the methods of Natural Family Planning that today, couples may practice responsible parenthood in ways that are altogether reliable, medically safe without harmful side-effects, and morally acceptable." This should not be confused with the old Roman Catholic practice of �Rhythm� humorously dubbed �Vatican roulette.� Because, as one writer put it, �Rhythm is to Natural Family Planning what the Model T is to the modern automobile.� Today one can easily access accurate information on this �art� or science from groups such as �The Couple to Couple League.� Thus NFP, when used correctly, has been proven to have a higher accuracy than many immoral contraceptives.

The writer, William Klimon, commenting on the acknowledged compatibility of the practice of marital abstinence with Orthodox doctrine observed that traditionally there are �approximately 180 fast days in the year, in which sexual intercourse was prohibited. At other times it was also not allowed for other reasons. Thus one Orthodox priest wrote that Orthodox do not need contraception -- they only need to keep the fasts!� Klimon then rightly concludes, �This is certainly analogous, in principle, to NFP.�

In fact, a recent Synod of the Orthodox Church in America declared, �Married couples are encouraged to abstain from sexual union at times for the sake of devotion to prayer (as, for example, on the eves of the Eucharist, and during Lenten seasons). They are to do so, however, only "for a season by agreement" since their bodies are not their own but belong to each other; and they are to "come together again lest Satan tempt" them (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:2-7).� This biblical principal echoed by the Synod is also in harmony with the idea of periodic continence.

It should be stated that the Church does not teach that every family must have as many offspring as is humanly possible. The author, Paul Whitcomb, explains, "The Catholic Church is not opposed to birth control when it is accomplished by natural means, by SELF control. She is opposed only to birth control by artificial means, by the employment of pills, condoms, IUD's, foams, jellies, sterilization, non-completion of the act of sexual union - or any other means used to prevent conception from resulting from this act" (The Catholic Church has the Answer, 50).

Whitcomb adds, "Contraception implies free reign of physical impulses; it implies total disregard for the fate of the human seed; it implies utter contempt for the honorable birth of fellow humans who are born as the result of a contraceptive having failed and whose very existence is therefore considered to be an unfortunate 'accident,' rather than a gift of God; it implies the most extreme selfishness, for no advocate or practitioner of artificial birth control would have wanted it for his or her own parents... worst of all, many 'contraceptives,' such as the IUD and most if not all birth control pills, [have a secondary effect of] actually causing an abortion early in the pregnancy; thus, this so-called 'contraception' [can become] in reality abortion - the killing of a human being - rather than the preventing of conception" (51, 52). Many parishes are now going so far as to provide information and classes regarding Natural Family Planning to educate couples in the art of NFP. This is just further evidence that no one needs to be guilty of the sin of �Onanism.�

Yet, the choice of a couple to practice Natural Family Planning still must be done in a way consistent with Christian morality as preserved in the Bible and taught by the Fathers. The choice to practice NFP should not be based on a view that reduces children to the level of mere commodities. Opting for a new car, or other similarly unnecessary things, instead of being open to new life can be gravely immoral and clearly opposed to the Orthodox Faith. This is because children have an infinitely greater value than any material possession could ever have.

The Church, based on Holy Scripture and Tradition, teaches that God calls married couples to be generously fruitful. If there is serious reason, this call to fruitfulness can be postponed, but only by natural means. As Archbishop Flavin commented, NFP must be used only for �just reasons.� The reasons which would justify its use are outlined by Paul VI who wrote, �In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth" (Humanae Vitae #10). Using these categories, a good pastor could be very profitable in helping the couple discern whether their motives are justified for delaying the birth of another child through the use of NFP.

Yet, some might argue that there is no moral difference between Natural Family Planning and artificial birth control. This is untrue. The profound difference is this: with artificial birth control -directly disobeying the clear teaching of Scripture and Tradition- a couple deliberately impedes, frustrates and disables the life-giving potency of their marital act, rendering it sterile. A potential human being who might be on a direct trajectory to being conceived is deliberately prevented from being. But with Natural Family Planning the couple are not at all obstructing the conception of a new life in their marital act but instead are timing their undefiled marital act (cf. Hebrews 13:4) during the season God has designed the wife to be infertile, when no new life can result. Therefore, just as there is a proper way for a man and a woman to engage in sexual relations, that is, only in the marital covenant, so too is there a proper way to limit the number of children in a family, that is, by natural means. And, just as there is a proper intention for marriage, that is for love, companionship and children, so too is there a proper reason for using NFP, only if additional children would bring great difficulty to the family.

I will also note that "less than two percent of the couples practicing Natural Family Planning, end up in divorce, although the national average for Christian couples is approximately the same as non-Christian Americans" (Scott Hahn, Life Giving Love). This is just an indication of the fact that those who trust Christ and allow Him to be Lord of their entire lives, including their marital relations, will reap the rewards of being "good and faithful servants" not only in the after-life but even in the here and now. After all, as the saying goes, �if Christ isn�t �Lord of all,� then �He isn�t Lord at all.��

All this is in accord with the supreme goodness of giving life as stated above so beautifully by Fr. Hopko who said, �if a unique person can exist, God will bring him into existence.� This also agrees with the unanimous witness of Sacred Scripture which never describes children as a curse but always as a blessing. As the Psalmist puts it, "Behold the inheritance of the Lord are children: the reward, the fruit of the womb" (Psalm 126:3 LXX). �Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine on the sides of thy house: Thy children as young olive-plants round about thy table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed that fears the Lord.� (Psalm 127:3-4 LXX).

Finally, it is important to realize, as the theologian Fr. Edward D. O'Connor of Notre Dame commented, "In a culture that constantly teases appetites with images of sex flaunted by television, movies, novels, songs, dances, styles of dress, etc., Catholic marriage doctrine appears prohibitive and restrictive. Furthermore, social pressure today is gearing moral standards and even public laws to the supposition that it is normal for people to have sex freely, so that we had better adjust to it by readily available contraceptives, unrestricted abortions (even for minors, without parental consent or information), easy marriage, no-fault divorces, etc. In such a climate, the doctrine that sex outside of marriage is immoral, and that even inside marriage it needs to be governed by the demands of its inner meaning and purpose, appears harsh and unreal. Young people in particular are tempted to see the Church as depriving them of the full joy of life" (The Catholic Way, 204). As St. Paul attested, many today have become, �lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, as they make a pretense of religion, but deny its power� (2 Tim 3:4-5).

In closing, there are many who can suggest a wide variety of hypothetical situations that they think might justify the use of contraception. Let them recall that, as Christians, we do not conform the truth to meet the demands of a situation, but rather, we conform the situation to meet the demands of the truth. And the truth is: contraception is always gravely sinful. This is the witness of the early Church and the Great Fathers of the Church. It is the teaching of the �Breath of God,� the Holy Bible, and has been maintained in every century until our own day. We have seen it with our eyes and must know it is the very truth of God. We even have a very practical way of knowing how to live this truth. Let us, therefore, heed the words of St. Paul who stated, �Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous� (Hebrews 13:4).

May God give us all the strength to never abandon this or any other truth given us through our Holy Fathers, from Christ Himself. Let us pray that the many theologians who are teaching in opposition to the Fathers and the Word of God will repent and become champions of this unchanging truth. What each of us needs is courage, faith and trust in our loving Father that by the mediation of His Only-Begotten Son and through the power and inspiration of His Life-Giving Spirit, we can be faithful and live the truth.

Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
Now and ever and unto ages of ages, amen.

On the Eve of St. Leontius and fellow Martyrs, 2002
Wm. DerGhazarian

Andrew in Christ,

Ghazar's post just about says it all. The Catholic Church teaches that there is a hierarchy among 3 "ends" of marriage: the procreative end, the unitive end, and the remedy for concupiscience (which actually receives the most coverage in St. John Chrysostom's famous homily ).

Every act of marital relations must be open to all three ends. Natural marital relations are not forbidden during the times when the wife is unable to conceive, however, as long as the couple doesn't do anything to alter the NATURE of the *ACT* so that *THE ACT* would be unable to transmit life. Even if one party is sterile, or if they are 75 years old, as long as they are capable of natural marital relations they are not forbidden them.

Contraception is forbidden because it is an attempt to separate the ends of marriage from one another, and to violate the order of creation as ordained by God. Moreover, in trying to destroy the procreative end, a contacepting couple also destroys the unitive end and the remedy for concupiscience. I have known of many couples who converted from contraception, who witnessed that it had destroyed their love for one another.

I would like to emphasize that the use of NFP to "space" or avoid children requires a "grave reason"--it cannot be something like "we both want careers" or "we need a flat-screen TV" or "we're raising dogs instead". :rolleyes:

The Latin Church has never taught, in any document, that each act of relations must be a deliberate attempt to have the next kid. Maybe some old Irish pastors did that , but it was never the teaching of the Church.

God bless you, Andrew.

LatinTrad

I have posted this at another location in this forum, but I think it needs to be heard here as well!


Where to Start????? Are you people not thinking??? Is it a "choice", spritual dicision, oconamia, personal surcumstance... is that how you justify MURDER????? Contraception, in ANY form is a death sentance!!!! Abortion is clearly, and VERY cleary stated by the Early Church Father's (ST, John Chrysostom comes to mind) a SEVERE sin and a MURDER, the death of a human life! Most means of artificial birth control are abortifacients, and actually, even if you use something to avoid conception, you are still incresing your chances for cancer by significant amounts!! I have heard many stories about women who die(although the M.D.'s will deny it for eternity), from cervical or breast cancer, and everyone of them had either had an abortion or used artificial birth control. As a woman I find it VERY disconcerting that people who keep saying that they believe in God, Christ, and that there is right and wrong could still find it acceptible to kill themselves--not only spirtually, for it severs them from GOD--but phisically, because, except by some miracle, they will die--rather painfully--for the consequences of their actions. To try to put it off a choice, or an act of mercy, would be like saying that euthinasia is OK because they are really in pain, the fact that they could go to Hell for such a serious and heinous sin wouldn't matter. Do you not realize that God is an All-Good and LIFE-CREATING God, and that he makes these rules, and has his ministers(such as the Church Fathers) enforce and explain them, because he doesn't want to see us hurt? How can you image killing a person that God created? How would you feel about walking up to the person next to you and shooting them? What would your confessor say? Would he agree, when your response was merely 'Well I didn't know them, and they might have gotten to the point of making my life uncomfotable' NO!!!No one would console you and say that you 'did the right thing, because you don't know how things could have turned out', So Why do you support those who do this to innocent babes who have never even made a choice in this world???

I wonder what The Blessed Theotokos whould have done with Jesus Christ our Lord God and Savior, if she had had the direction you people seem to be giving'no husband, no family, no problem!'

Or The Fact that ANYONE who supports Anti-Life views is like the Roman Soldier who Murdered millions of innoents in the hunt to crucify our Lord?

Mother Mary Save us!!!

Holy Theotokos Bless us!!(for we are in desperate need!!!)

*a nation who kills its own is a nation without hope*


Oh Yeah, BTW, If you haven't yet realized, the greatest thing about the Theotokos, was that she did NOT stop creation of God, by denying to hold the --'fetus', embyro, or whatever we think is the right term for an unborn child is,-- of Jesus Christ. We then must in imataion of this, and to abide by the commandment not to inhibit the creation and will of God, MUST NOT USE ANY MEANS IN WHICH WOULD EVEN DENY LIFE A CHANCE TO BEGIN AT THE PLACE AND TIME GOD DEAMED FOR IT(Oh yeah this includes making petri-dish babies), although NFP which could also be called "creative abstinace" requires only that you are chatse. Such a hard thing to do? Why don't you ask Sts Joesph, foster father of Christ, and maybe Agnes, who lost her life because of it, but HAVE GAINED ETERNAL LIFE AND GLORIFICATION!!!!!

Thank you, BeckyAnn. Actually, this thread was a long and painstaking attempt to convince brother Andrew that non-abortafacient contraceptives are also wrong.

You are right, though. Such things should not even be questioned in Christian circles.

LatinTrad

Dear Latin Trad,

Thanks for the explanation.

However, I still remain unconvinced that the reasoning presented can be applied absolutely in all cases. Allow me to offer another comparison of the moral gray area that I first proposed (sparing use of non-abortifacient contraceptives to maintain the marital bond in the face of strong temptations to adultery in the context of a medical situation wherein a conception would likely cause the death of the mother and/or child), with another equally gray situation.

I do this since you have not answered my specific previous posits regarding eikonomia in another moral gray area: ectopic pregnancy. Only Mother Sharon commented, in support. [If you recall, she supported me with a reference to a Papal statement indicating that, yes, indeed, the Western Church, accepts that surgery to move an ectopic pregnancy from the fallopian tube to the uterus is acceptable when the goal is preservation of both the mother's life and the child's life, all the while knowing that there is but a slim chance that the child will attach there. - Mother Sharon, please correct and forgive me if I have misstated your support of my postition.]

{I also asked if the Bishop of Corfu was right or wrong when he broke the Commandment against giving false witness (see an earlier post). I have received only silence.}

{The last time that I checked, there was a commandment against murder (abortion and abortifacient contraceptives included) and against giving false witness, but none against artificial non-abortifacient contraception. Yes, there are other sins condemned in scripture and canon, but this one (ABC) is condemned in one particular context quite different from the ABC context that I proposed}


Now, to the latest comparison. Let's look at normal childbirth vs. induced childbirths, those delivered by Ceasarean Section, and use of epidural pain killers, for example.

All would agree that normal child birth is the norm and that chemical induction, Ceasarean Section, and epidural pain killers are diversions from the norm. In fact, these three variations from the norm offer substantial risks to the health of the mother and child. The number of women suffering side effects from induction drugs (swollen uterus requiring histerectomy (sp?)), spinal cord damage from epidural needles, and infections etc. from Ceasarean surgery, is quite high. We now know that in many cases these procedures were not even necessary, but recommended so that the doctors could have more procedures to bill to the insurance companies.

Leaving these billing scandals aside and out of the argument, why can we not make an argument against these procedures on the basis of what is natural and unnatural? My wife and I certainly do think in that line. Our own son was born without the assistance of any doctor, any pain killers, any artificial latex gloves, or any operating room. We hoped that God's grace would be sufficient to bring him into the world.

But we are not extremists. To deny that something good may come through artificial means, or that something bad may be prevented by use of artificial means denies that God gave us the capacity to design artificial means that can be used for good. (Our operating room was just minutes away through a corridor.)

The same pain killers, latex gloves, surgical equipment, and epidural injections that could be used to save the lives of mother and child in extreme circumstances could also be used for abortions. The items are not the problem, the purpose towards which they are used is where the problem comes in.

Or as they say, "guns don't kill people, people do." That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be registered, but in registering the weapon we register the owner. He has the ability to use the weapon for good or bad. The gun cannot be guilty of sin.

What about artificial insemination. Has the Church condemned it for married couples?

So that's where I leave it today. Are you willing to say that it is only in the case of conjugal marital relations that all use of artificial means is evil, but everywhere else it may do good or bad, depending upon the circumstance? Is procreation the only area in which life hangs in the balance and where we must exclusively count on God's grace? I would hope that we count on his grace every day and in every circumstance. But he still wants us to do what is right and wrong in the situation, not follow a formula in one case that we are practically unable to apply consistently everywhere.

I hope that my point is understood.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Economy must not be confused with casuistry. Use of "economy" presupposes that the allowance being made CAN be made. No one can be granted an allowance to do something that is intrinsically--of its very nature--evil.

Regarding ectopic pregnancies, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that no direct abortion is permissible. An operation that attempts to move the child to an environment in which he or she can survive, even with a low success rate, may be permissible (I have to read more about the nature of such operations). But Pius XII affirmed the Church's constant teaching that no direct killing of the child is permissible, even to save the mother's life. Economy does not enter into the question at all.

Economy, properly understood, presupposes a rigorous understanding of the black-and-white. Moreover, it can be applied only to ordinances of Church institution, or to human tradition; no one can be dispensed from the Natural Law through economy. Thus, my priest may (for a just cause) give me a dispensation from attending Sunday liturgy. Maybe a bishop can (for a just cause) dispense his subjects from this or that fast. But NO ONE can dispense ANYONE, including himself, from the Natural Law. Thus, I cannot allow murder, adultery, fornication, OR contraception through economy, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Regarding "bearing false witness": the Catholic Tradition states that one may, for a just cause, use mental reservation--i.e. he may state something that IS true, in a certain sense, but that will be misunderstood. For example, if you are hiding Jews, and the Nazis come knocking, you can tell them "I don't have any rotten Jews here," or something like that--you are not telling a direct lie. Of course none of the Jews are rotted. This may seem like a foolish distinction, but it is not; the purpose of speech is truth. (I emphasize that mental reservation requires just cause).

Regarding "artificial" births vs. "natural" births: your argument does not hold water, for your analogy ignores the reason WHY contraception is wrong. Contraception is wrong, not because it is "artificial," but because it violates the purpose of the marital act. Marital relations have certain ends, as I posted above. To separate relations from those ends is to violate the created order, as discernible by reason and UNAMBIGUOUSLY revealed by God.

Regarding artificial insemination: the only attempts to justify this (from a Catholic prespective) that I have run into have narrowed it down to a situation where, after natural marital relations, the spermatazoa in the wife can be moved. I don't even know if this would really be permissible by the Church. The test-tube baby industry is immoral, not only because of the kids they kill in those labs, but also because of the separation between the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality.


To say that one may commit the sin of contraception in order to avoid the sin of adultery in a case where the wife's life would be endagered by conception, is to:

-say that the ends justify the means,
-deny that God's grace is sufficient to keep us from sin, and
-ignore the fact that contraceptives often fail.

As we have seen, contraception is condemned by Scripture, Tradition, and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church (which has been seconded most emphatically by the Orthodox hierarchy from the top down). Contraception is an *intrinsically* evil act, and the comparison to C-section births is futile.

LatinTrad

Dear LatinTrad,

Would you also say that to bear false witness is also *intrinsically* evil?

In Christ,
Andrew

Yes.

Did you read what I said about mental reservation?

Dear Latin Trad,

And that is the unacceptable part of the teaching.

So if they came and asked you if you had any Jews to surrender you would have kept saying:

"I don't have any rotten Jews."

"I don't have any filthy Jews."

"I don't have any lying Jews."

Eventually, they would have figured it out, I think that you would admit, and taken the Jews from your cellar.

In Albania, the Christians and Muslims gave the Jews their own surnames, registered them locally as family members, risked their lives hiding them and kept up the "intrinsically evil" lie throughout the whole war. It was the only occupied country in Europe in WWII that surrendered not a single Jew to the Germans Jew-hunters. At the Holocaust memorial in Washington, D.C., one will find a special memorial to the Albanian nation on the wall reserved to "the righteous Gentiles."

And that's why the Bishop of Corfu is on that wall also.

And I guess that's why there's no memorial to those who kept the position that you profess.


With all due respect, your reasoning has classified all actions as either intrinsically evil or not intrinsically evil. I can go with that, if you agree that context and purpose count.

CAUTION TO READERS: THIS NEXT PASSAGE IS RATHER GRAPHIC AND DEALS WITH ECTOPIC PREGNANCY.

You seem to almost be agreeing to a contextual allowance (eikonomia) for an ectopic pregnancy in that the "intrinsically evil" surgical action that an abortionist would use would be the same one used by a heroic doctor trying to save the lives of both mother and child. The abortionist and doctor would both surgically remove the fetus from the fallopian tube, cutting it off from it's current life-sustaining situation. Is that action "intrinsically evil" or not? And get this, to let the abortionist off easy, NEITHER may commit the "direct killing" of the child. Usually abortionists place these "reproductive products" in steel trays to die on his or her own. (Of course, I know that this is murder! And if I were to put my baby son outside in the winter to "die on his own" it would be murder no less. That's why I'm saying that context and purpose are critical to the ethical debate!) The life-saving doctor would attempt to attach such a fetus to the wall of the uterus and then pray to God almighty that the child takes hold. The same initial procedure of surgically cutting the child from his life-sustaining situation, but with different contexts and purposes.

Of course, my brother, the ends MAY justify the means, depending on WHAT the means are. And so arose the theory for a "Just War," still a pillar of your Latin Tradition. The Allies and the Axis both shot each other dead on the battlefield, but the Allies' actions were justified. Same actions, but different contexts and purposes.

We have a different approach in the East that doesn't force us to recognize intrinsically evil or intrinsically just actions separate from their context and purpose. We see humanity as fallen and all affected by the inheritence of sin (mortality). Or to paraphrase Archbishop Demetrios (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese), the teaching and role of the Church is not to bring a kind of heaven on earth, but to keep the earth from becoming a kind of hell.

Please think it over. Is everything so black and white or is it only so from the comfort of our libraries and palaces?

In Christ,
Andrew

Regarding the Holocaust: Undoubtedly the Albanians in question could have been using mental reservation. Italian Catholics did similar things during the Holocaust--even going so far as to create false Nazi identification papers for fugitive Jews. Many Monsigori and nuns were involved in these projects throughout Italy, with the approval of the Great Pope Pius XII. There was no lying. There were martyrs.

Regarding ectopic pregnancy: I do not grant you that the abortionist and the doctor are performing the same "action". The actions are as different from one another as fornication is from marital relations. There may be a material similarity, but the formal essences of the two actions are different.

Regarding ends and means: As Mor and I were discussing above on this thread, for an action to be permissible both the ends and the means must be moral. A good end does not justify immoral means. Ever. "Just war" theory rests on the assumption that waging war is not opposed to the Commandment, which forbids murder. Contraception, on the other hand, is immoral. Circumstances, intentions, ends, etc., do not alter that reality. You can try to muddy the waters all you want; there is no getting around the teaching of the Fathers: contraceptive sex is an immoral action.

It seems appropriate to remind all readers that the Church does offer other alternatives to couples if conception of a child would result in the death of the mother. NFP has been refined to such a degree that it is a far safer course of action than contraception, which often fails. If the periods of abstinence seem too much for a couple, they need to trust that God will give them the grace.

You may wonder why those Catholics have to be so rigoristic about morality. But what about, say, the engaged man? Maybe he has been engaged, or dating, for a long time. How can we convince him that he must not give into the excruciating sexual temptation he suffers? If I take the despised "western" tack, I can tell him that God will give him the grace to be chaste, that he must trust, that if he asks, chastity will be given him, and that there is no possible justification for him to have sex as an unmarried man. On the other hand, if I tell him that there are "grey areas" in sexual morality, and that some temptations are "too strong" for him, and that we don't need to make a "heaven on earth," and that "eikonomia" can be used to justify evil actions, then what the hell is going to keep him from fornicating?

I hope my point is plain.

LatinTrad