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

Everybody check out this link, for an interesting analysis of the current Orthodox stance on contraception, vs. the teaching of the Fathers.

This article makes it clear that the early Church regarded homicide, abortifacients, and non-abortifacient coitus interruptus as equally sinful.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ274.HTM

Alex,

Thanks for the post. I think that we may be missing one another�s points. I used the term �protestant� to describe your earlier post because it appeared (and still does) that you are suggesting that the morality on this issue needs to be decided by each individual.

I do agree that Humane Vitae is not a comprehensive presentation of the Church�s teaching on this topic. It is, however, the most concise and most authoritative. It appears to me, at least, that you are dismissing it very cavalierly in favor of conscientious choice. You are most correct when you state that the Church teaches that people should have only that number of children that they can adequately feed and educate. But this doesn�t really enter into the discussion as support justifying the use of artificial contraception because there are other methods of contraception that are acceptable to the Church (abstinence).

You raised the issue of excommunication and I responded that each of us excommunicates ourselves from Christ and his Church with our sinful actions. Regarding the theologian at St. Michael�s University in Toronto I believe that what he said is in conformity with the Church�s teaching on sin. One must discern between an immoral action and a sinful action. Those who ignore the Church�s teaching because they honestly disagree or simply don�t know are still doing something immoral. Their action, however, may not actually be sinful. If it is not sinful they do wander farther from Christ by their action but do not actually cut themselves off in the more formal sense. This is not theological double-talk from either the Eastern or Western viewpoints. I firmly believe that the answer to these questions lies in proper education. The Church�s teaching on the nature of sex with marriage is very beautiful indeed.

I appreciate your comments about the need for pastoral sensitivity. I disagree with the logical conclusion of your argument, which is that if enough Catholics disagree and reject any teaching then the Church will eventually abandon it in favor of something more popular.

Perhaps our disagreement here is rooted in the fact that this is really a Monday even though the calendar claims it is a Tuesday?

Admin

Dear Alex,

Alright, now an Anglican is standing up to you.

The Fathers objected to contraception on the grounds that it prevented life within the context of sex. Abortion was a whole different issue. The example of Onan is explicit. He acted like a scoundrel. Ejaculation without the possibility of new life is sinful.

Would you say that an active homosexual who still lives with his boyfriend deserves absolution "because he is doing his best." What would St John the Baptist say? It is about repentance and renewal.

Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae wasn't out of the blue. It was preceeded by Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii, which is even tougher than Humanae Vitae. John Paul II carried the tradition with Evangelium Vitae.

And the Orthodox East stands shoulder to shoulder with Humanae Vitae. Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras stated: "I absolutely agree with the pope...Pope Paul VI could not have spoken otherwise. Holding the Gospel in his hand, he seeks to protect the morals as well as the interests and the existence of the nations...I am at the pope�s side, in all that he is doing and saying."

Now how can you say that sin is not sin?

to Jesus through Mary,
Marshall

Dear Administrator,

Would you not agree that personal and contextual circumstances impinge upon the sinfulness of any act that is objectively sinful?

How is that being "protestant?"

In any event, what that theologian said seems to me to be quite the "run-around" or "theological fast-sticking."

If, as our stalwarts here maintain, to go against Humanae Vitae is "heretical" and "objectively sinful," then how could a Catholic go against it and still be "in good standing" in the Church?

Could someone believing in Arianism say the same about themselves?

"Invincible ignorance" seems to cover a host of sins.

And it isn't just about "not knowing" what the teaching of the Church is.

It is also about "knowing what it is" and still being opposed to it.

As St Alphonsus Liguori wrote, such Catholics could be in invincible ignorance and confessors are not to argue with them (yes, my theological reading extends to Catholic authors, as well as Protestant ones . . . )

If most of the Church agreed with Arianism, then the Church would largely be Arian and excommunicated from the historic Church of Christ.

But when it comes to Humanae Vitae, somehow all those married Catholics who ignore it are members in good standing.

Just wondering . . .

And on this fine Monday, the Ontario election has been finally called for October 2nd.

Alex

Dear Marshall,

You mean "an Anglican minority of extremely small proportions" right?

We're not talking homosexuality here. Nor is it helpful to bring in old Onan. "Onanism" has traditionally been seen in conjunction with masturbation i.e. sex for purposes of self-gratification, selfish ends etc.

Can married sex be like masturbation? Yes, it can if it does done within a self-seeking way.

In any event, "Onanism" was, first and foremost, about the sin of sexual egotism with his wasted sperm being the outward sign of his unwillingness to be open to the possibility of procreation etc.

And that is morally and entirely different from Catholic families with children and the moral issues they face.

And apart from the absolute natural law underpinnings of Humanae Vitae (is natural law, taken from pagan philosophy, a sine qua non of Christianity too), my point, and I hope that is self-evident, is that Catholic bishops conferences, individual Bishops, theologians and Confessors have also had their input into this moral issue.

I have yet to hear Rome excommunicating the bishops of this or that national RC Church for saying what they did about Humanae Vitae.

Has there been something on EWTN that I've missed?

The Administrator calls "protestant" moral situations that are impacted by a person's particular environmental constraints.

The fact is, such constraints always impact the moral choices we make.

The point is also that when I hear Roman Catholics (usually unmarried) decry Orthodoxy for not being as "consistent" on artificial birth control as Rome is - well, one simply has to laugh.

The Vatican's ruling elites suffer from a real dislocation of perspective when it comes to married Catholics, celibate priests et al.

And Eastern Catholics, it would seem. At least, some here would make that argument, or so I've sometimes heard.

Objectively, is ABC sinful? Yes, of course it is, and no RC or Orthodox would deny that.

Can it be less sinful in specific contexts? That can ONLY be answered within a struggling, pentitent conscience who works with his Confessor and who tries to obey the Church while submitting to the discipline of prayer.

This is not a question that is easily answered. Many Catholics choose to ignore it and that is up to them and their consciences.

I'm here talking about the struggling married Catholics with children.

They don't deny Humanae Vitae.

And they struggle to obey the Church.

Nothing is black and white.

Faith isn't either. If it were, I don't think it would be real "faith."

Alex

Brother Alex you are confusing things here. Just because there are factors that lessen subjective culpability does not mean that the objective hard-and-fast character of the prohibition on contraception can be questioned.

Alex wrote:
"Nothing is black and white."

This is utter nonsense. Some things are black and white. The Church's teaching on this issue is very black and white. We are responsible to accept that teaching. If we don't, there MAY be factors (like ignorance) that mitigate our culpability. But they do not change the objective black-and-white nature of the moral law. Nothing does, nothing can.

LatinTrad

Alex asked:
Would you not agree that personal and contextual circumstances impinge upon the sinfulness of any act that is objectively sinful?

Personal and contextual circumstances do impinge upon the sinfulness of any act that is objectively immoral (which is what I think you meant to say). That should have been evident in my posts. There are times in our lives when we are forced to choose between two undesirable options. I�m not sure how you can use such an argument to support choosing artificial contraception. Married couples are able to freely choose to refrain from sexual activity or can use natural methods of conception control.

If someone honestly and consciously rejects the Church teaching on this issue then there is a real question as to whether an immoral action is sinful. The possibility that it may not be a sinful choice does not mean that it is not an immoral choice. It becomes �protestant� when you reduce the issue to merely personal choice, based upon individual circumstances. Your opinions, as presented here, appear to reduce this issue to one of personal choice (which is why I commented as I did). People should strive to choose what is objectively correct and right rather than to seek loopholes on what is possible not definitely sinful.

Could someone reject Humanae Vitae and remain in good standing with the Church? Yes. If one rejects out of ignorance then one�s rejection is not rooted in denial of truth. If, however, one realizes that what the Church teaches is true and then rejects it anyway they are guilty of sin. The Church does not condemn people in ignorance. People who consciously reject the truth condemn themselves.

Could someone believing in Arianism say the same about themselves? Possibly. A person who holds that view is certainly embracing a heretical teaching. One must know and understand the truth and then reject it and continue in their rejection despite correction by the Church in order to be a heretic. One who holds such an opinion in ignorance is not a heretic. Keep in mind that a distinction is always made between those who question a teaching because they do not understand it and those who understand it and reject it.

My read of this topic is that the vast majority of Catholics are pretty ignorant about the theology of sexual activity within marriage. I am no theologian (and don�t play one on tv) but it appears to me that marriages would be strengthened with a good dose of prayer and education on this topic.

Admin

Could someone "reject" HV and remain in good standing with the Church? Not if they knew they were rejecting HV.

To say that one can reject HV and remain in good standing with the Church . . . that's like saying one can reject the 10 commandments and still be in line with Scripture.

There may be personal circumstances that invite pity, and may mitigate culpability, but objectively you cannot reject HV and remain in good standing with the Church.

Enough said. We know the Church's teaching; we have heard the voice of Christ speaking through the Church, as He Himself promised.

There is no use trying to fiddle-faddle around.

LatinTrad

Yes we do indeed know the Church's teaching - but Christ was compassionate.

You cannot know what is in people's minds.

You must teach - yes - but you must also be compassionate

Anhelyna

Most revered Anhelyna,

That's what I said a couple posts ago--but remember that compassion always includes truth, and never falsehood.

Christ is the perfect example of that.

He never wavered from the Truth, even when He "hurt the feelings" of His own followers. Alex is a tough guy, too .

I am sorry if I have offended anyone.

God Bless all.

LatinTrad

Dear Ghazar,

While I was away, there was much commentary around your question and how it relates to contraception:

"Being a former Roman Catholic, I became familiar with a maxim very common in that Church which states,

"it is never licit to do evil that good may come."

Assuming they don't qualify such a statement, but take it at face value -based on what you have said- is it fair to say that in the Eastern Orthodox Church the corollarly maxim would be,

"it is only licit to do evil inorder to avoid a greater evil" ?


However, I feel that there is a dimension missing in the replies. Perhaps the first response should be to ask, "what is evil?"

Remember my many previous rantings against inappropriate existential language? Well this is a good example. For this reason some of insist on the following: "...and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one ('o poniros)."

"Evil" doesn't exist, but good does. HE IS good, love, truth, life, justice, mercy. These endure forever and with each new birth the opportunity to live them out is renewed. The whole natural cycle of things (creation) is good in and of itself. But the works of the "Evil One" flash by but for a moment when we sinners act toward his purposes. His princedom is passing away. Even if we were to curse or strike our baby sons, they would smile again at us after 10 minutes, such is the intrinsic goodness that is born with them. Good always resurfaces automatically because it is an intrinsic part of the fabric of creation. Evil must be perpetrated over and over.

I believe that I owe this understanding not only to my upbringing in my family and the church, but to John Steinbeck's "East of Eden" and the person who referred me to it.

Having said that we see that "evil" is a work toward's the devil's purposes, a work that divides us from God and each other.

It is written "thou shall not steal"

But is it always evil to steal? When we really need food and no one will give it and there is plenty to be had and no one notices that we have removed one loaf? Is it evil to feed ourselves for one day by theft and then pay back later through work? I think not. It is not the model. It misses the mark and is therefore sinful, but I wouldn't call it evil.

Was man created for bread or bread created for man?

Now if I take a knife and terrorize the bread salesman while stealing the same single loaf, even promising to pay back tomorrow, that might be considered a work of evil. The salesman was divided from me as are two enemies, he is tempted to be suspicious or to hate all of my same color, appearance, nationality, gender, or religion, etc. In short, I have made stealing into hateful stealing.

At the same time, he who quietly steals one loaf, secretly replacing it the next day, must still accept his action as sinful. What mismanagement of personal finances caused him to be in such a state whereby he lacked money even for bread? What has he done to others that now they refuse to lend him money or give him bread? A self-examination is always in order for any serious Christian.

The family of General Erwin Rommel (aka: "the Desert Fox") published his diaries after WWII. They titled them "War Without Hate" because he was a professional soldier who respected his enemies, never dehumanizing them as the Nazi machine in control of his Army wanted. He did not act out the cause of the divider, the evil one, because he did not hate and divide, but surely, what he did as a soldier (killing people) was sinful.

I don't think that we should counsel someone to commit mortal sins in order to avoid something worse. What could be worse than a mortal sin? But we might legitimately counsel someone to understand that if they must sin, a smaller, venial sin is preferable to a mortal one.

So, I would agree that if a bottle of whiskey keeps a potential axe murderer safely at home and incapacitated, its better for his salvation and ours if he drinks it. Still, he needs to examine and disarm his urge to chop up people with something deeper and more lasting than (artificial axe-killing control) whiskey.

I'm not proposing that a couple ever be blessed to use ABC, but that it could be counseled as a temporary measure to avoid greater harm, much as I would counsel one to steal peacefully and quietly in order to avoid starvation.

The goal of an admittedly sinful action, use of ABC instead of being satisfied with the blessings God has already bestowed, may prevent, in some cases, a division of the family due to temptation and adultery. This couple that uses ABC would still be encouraged to examine themselves more closely, as we all ought to do for all of our sundry sins, in order to discover what is missing in their lives that causes them to fail to realize that declaration, "My grace is sufficient for you."

I hope that this has been helpful to the discussion, although I rambled on quite a bit.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Brother Alexander,

I am rather surprised in the stance you have taken in this thread. I thought someone as pro-papal and pro-patristic and steeped in Tradition and history might having something else to say than something like:

"In any organization where the majority of "lower members" does not follow the commands/wishes of the administration, change will soon come about."

Your knowledge and wisdom is far above such a stance, brother. You know the Christian Faith is not up for majority vote. When "the world was Arian," did the Church cater to the majority?

when you say:
And since when does an Eastern Catholic hold to the infallibility of "natural law" that undergirds Humanae Vitae?

No, I think you are showing some latent RCism here.

reply: I think you are making a false dichotomy. Many Orthodox traditionally accept notions of natural law AND many initially accepted the teaching represented by Humanae Vitae, including Fr. Alexander Schmemann and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras. If you do some searching on the web, you may be surprised as I was that their is a growing grass-roots movement among the laity AGAINST contraception. For instance, there is the following Orthodox Priest who has an entire site dedicated to this subject:

http://www.paratheke.net/stephanos/

when you say that:
And, apart from Chrysostom, whose quote you have taken out of context (yet again), did you know that the type of contraception that the Fathers condemned were, in their day, abortifacients, something that, without a doubt, would be avoided by many CAtholics practicing artifical birth control today?

reply: I am very surprised that you would make such an incorrect argument. Besides being untrue, it is nothing but a cop-out for those who wish to attempt to ignore the overwhelming Patristic evidence (east and west) condemning contraception. The Fathers clearly distinguished between the pharmakeia that destroyed the fetus and the pharmakia which prevented its formation and conception. And they condemned them both! They weren't operating under mistaken notions of biology either. As Noonan writes:

�One might think that these terms [i.e. the Fathers condemnations of contraception] either reflect an erroneous biology which identifies man with the seed, or show that the writers are not speaking of contraception at all. Neither alternative is correct. The Christian writers are using this language rhetorically and morally, just as, rhetorically and morally, they attacked abortion as homicide and parricide. A review of (a) the relevant theories of classical biology, (b) the leading theories on ensoulment of the fetus, and (c) Roman legal terminology confirms this conclusion.�

He then explains that in Classical Biology,

�Three theories of procreation existed, all of them assigning the major role in procreation to the male seed. According to Aristotle, the male seed was the active form; the female menses provided the passive matter on which the form worked (Generation of Animals 1.20, 729a, 2.3, 737a). The view was general in the Roman world that the male seed combined with the female menses to make a fetus. It is asserted by Jerome (On Ephesians 5.30) and by Augustine (On Genesis According to the Letter 10.18.32). It appears to be the theory of the Hellenized Jew who wrote the Book of Wisdom (Wis 7:2), and of Lactantius (The Worker of God 12.6) The theory is assumed by Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 1.6.39, GCS 12:113). But under no theory was the male seed itself equal to a �man,� for under no theory was it maintained that the seed already had a soul.�

On the theory of ensoulment, Noonan writes,

�That no classical writer literally identified semen with man is clear from consideration of the leading theories on ensoulment. It is abundantly clear... that the most anyone contends is that ensoulment occurs at conception; the dominant view is that the fetus becomes a man only when �formed.� In light of such views on the fetus, no one could have confused the seed with a man or meant to say that destruction of the seed was literal homicide.�

Finally Noonan concludes,

�The essential Christian position is put by Tertullian in an attack on pagan abortion: �To prohibit birth is to accelerate homicide, nor does it matter whether one snatches away a soul after birth or disturbs one as it is being born. He is man who is future man, just as all fruit is now in the seed.� The protection of life leads to the prohibition of interference with life at the fetal stage. It is only one step to extend this protection to the life-giving process.� (Contraception, pgs. 88-91).

when you say:
During that time when I was in university, I had occasion to speak to a number of confessors and Catholic theologians about it.

The confessors said they wouldn't refuse absolution to a penitent who said he was doing the best he could, but could not NOT practice artificial birth control.

Theologians have tended to come out against it.

reply: Yes but this was but a sign of the rebellious times, my brother (you recall the 60's). Many of these theologians are only now begining to repent of their sinful and prideful obstinance, like the following:

The "majority report" was written and used as a tool to pressure Pope Paul VI into changing the Church's teaching. Since then there have been many theologians who have publicly repented of their initial dissent against the teaching of Humae Vitae. Here's the public confession of one RC theologian, William May (sp?) in September 1988, which he published in the "Fellowship of Catholic Scholars" newsletter:

"When I signed it (the letter of dissent against Humae Vitae) I did not believe that I could personally practice contraception. Nor would my wife who is truly courageus and who's intelligence is enlightened by a deep faith, would ever have allowed it. I was intellectually confused and I had been impressed by one line of argument in the majority report. But there was another baser reason why I signed this statement. Many of its signers had outstanding reputations as thinkers and scholars and I wanted to be counted among the elite, the illuminatee, the bold, the courageous, advanced thinkers in Roman Catholicism. I believe that I began to repent of my act almost immediately. Deep down I knew there was something wrong with contraception and I realized that my decision to sign this statement was, in part at least, motivated by base, vain-glorious considerations. In 1971, I began to teach Christian ethics and this forced me to study, and study carefully the nature of the moral argument. I began to see ever more clearly the sophistry of the majority report. I began to realize that the moral theory invented to justify contraception could be used to justify any kind of deed because it was consequentialistic and utilitarian and rejected the very notion of intrinsically evil acts. I began to realize how truly courageous and prophetic Pope Paul VI had been and how providential it was that he had been given the strength to resist the terrible pressures brought upon him to repudiate this priceless teaching of the Church -one rooted in a respect for our God-given power to give life and for the integral beauty of the marital act, which is meant to be life-giving and love-giving. I have, since my repentence over my cowardly act of 1968, done what I could to make known the truth of the Church's teaching on contraception (from 'Humanae Vitae in Context')."

I think this is important because it sheds a lot of light on the moral climate at the time of Pope Paul VI's encyclical and also how the "majority report" was used as tool rather than honest presentation of ethical investigation.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. DerGhazarian

p.s.

An excellent discussion of the arguments for NFP over Artificial Birth Control is the 3 tape set called "Life Giving Love" by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.

In it Scott Hahn gives strong arguments that the condemnation of A.B.C. is an infallible teaching of the Church. He shows the Jesuits in this coutry, prior to Vatican II and prior to Humane Vitae had a month long conference of all the leading moral theologians and came to this same conclusion that this was an infallible teaching. And Pope John Paul II himself has said that this is not an issue open to debate among Catholic theologians. Its considered "infallibe" not because the teaching was made by the Pope "ex cathedra" but rather because the condemnation of contraception is part of the continuous "ordinary majesterium" which is recognized as just as infallible as Papal "ex cathedra" statements.

Yet, I don't need Humanae Vitae. As Newman put it, "The Fathers are enough for me."

Again, I'm really surprised and saddened to see you of all people defending the use of contraception, arguing that it will one day be accepted by the Church and stating that no Eastern Father ever wrote against it. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the Orthodox Priest's (Fr. John Schroedel), or, if you have time, read the little document I put together which demonstrates the historical, consistent rejection of contraception. People look to you as an Orthodox voice on this forum, please don't lead them astray with what you are advocating here.

Brother Andrew,

Thanks for your explanations.

If I may get back to my question, based on what you have just explained, would you say then that contraception in the case of the couple who has unselfish reasons, really becomes no longer an evil at all but a good? If it is not an evil (which is a twisting of something good) then it must be a good and loving act. So instead of saying:

It is licit to do a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil

are you saying:

Something that has always been considered evil by the Church (East and West) becomes good or acceptable as long as the one doing it has good motives.

I understand your comparison of stealing, but when we consider Tradition, I don't think it is justified. What Father ever taught that anyone who takes food who is in need is guilty of sin and shouldn't ever do this in any case. The same holds for killing another human being. Many Fathers made allowances (e.g. self-defense, defending another, war, etc.). But there is not one Father who ever said that contraception was allowable in any circumstances. To the contrary we have numerous Fathers who manifest that the Church has always maintained that there is no justification for contraception. This is probably because (unlike eating and self-defense)there is always another obvious accessable alternative to contraception: i.e. abstinance. No one (contrary to how we might feel) is going to die without sex. Therefore, I'm not seeing how your above examples cover the act universally stigmatized as sinful and unacceptable in Christian marriage.

But I'm open to hearing you more on this,

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian

Dear Ghazar,

Maybe certain fathers have called all uses of ABC "evil," but I wouldn't even call ABC for selfish reasons explicitly "evil," but certainly sinful. To be properly called "evil," I'd like to see how it categorically works toward the devil's purposes. I could certainly see that it could be called "evil" in some instances, but not categorically.

But the mortal sins are always evil, in all cases.

I certainly agree that no one would die by abstaining, but still there could be extreme salvation-threatening consequences in those cases where adultery seems to be a strong temptation.

So I believe that I'm leaning on the Lord's statement, not to be taken literally, of course, "if your right eye offends you, pluck it out."

In this sense we see that we are called to take radical efforts, if absolutely necessary, to prevent worse, all the while avoiding the mortal sins or things which are abominable in God's eyes: apostacy, murder, adultery, fornication, incest, sodomy, and gluttony.

And then there is the famous parable of the corrupt manager. Perhaps you know it by another name, but the manager has cheated in some way on the books and the Lord of the house uncovers it. However, the manager quickly goes out and settles accounts, using mutually advantageous terms with the various debtors to the estate, thus making up the difference and pleasing the Lord of the house. He has used thrift and expediency to avoid a worse judgement upon himself. For this he is praised!

This is the maddeningly gray area of economia: the 2nd or 3rd marriage, out of our norm and model, but granted to avoid far, far worse. I put non-abortifacient artificial birth control in with that gray area, an unselfish expediency in some particular cases, certainly not evil, but not within the norm or model of Christian married life.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Isn't working against our relationship with God one of Satan's foremost agendas? So ISTM that all sinful acts are evil, for they work against our theosis.

Logos Teen