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

Dear Friends,

I ask your forgiveness of me for what I said here and what I implied pertaining to the Church's teaching re: Humanae Vitae.

I withdraw and repent of it in sum and submit myself to the teaching of the Church, the Scriptures and the Fathers.

I ask you to ignore what I wrote here and, if I have been the regrettable cause of scandal or moral confusion, I ask you, by God's Mercy, to forgive me.

Your sinful Alex

God Bless you, Alex. It takes quite a bit of humility to say that.

Dear Brother Alexander,

I have the utmost respect for your learning, wisdom and humility. Please pray for me that I may someday be like you.

Your brother in Christ's Light,

Wm. D.G.

Dear Brother Andrew,

I think I understand the position you are presenting here and I don't really have a beef with it. How to handle those who fall short of the mark is a lingering question of pastoral concern. Since I am not a pastor, I can not claim any real skill or knowledge in this area.

Yet my reading of the Fathers, does put contraception in the category of mortal sin. Again, if you are unsure of the testimony of the Fathers, there is my work "Is Contraception Orthodox" or the OCA Orthdoox Father John Schroedel's site "Stephanos" at the following links:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/apologetics.html

and

http://www.paratheke.net/stephanos

Other than this, I rejoice that we are agreed in the belief that the practice of contraception is a miss of the mark for Christian spouses.

with warmest regards,

Wm. D.G.

Dear Alex,

You are legit. I appreciate that about you.

in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Logos Teen,

Would that it were so simple!

I do believe that there are acts, not things, that are categorically evil or good, but that there are also acts that tend in one direction or the other other, depending upon circumstance.

I hope that this is not misinterpreted as relativism. I don't believe that it is since the anchors and models for measuring the actions are all in place and are those of the Gospel, but I certainly can understand why someone might tend to see my stated position in that way.

In the narrow case for accepting use of ABCs that I have outlined, the entire goal and hoped for result is to keep the Christian couple together in a monogamous relationship, not to divide them.

As I have stated, there is something lacking in the couple's relationship with God if they feel so tempted that they decide to resort to ABCs. But if they don't use ABCs and give in to adulterous temptations, there would be an enormous problem with their relationship with God.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Ghazar,

Thanks for the references!

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear brother Andrew,

Begging your pardon, I still see this as an illusory and false dichotomy. That's like the pot addict who justifies his behavior by saying "if I didn't get high, I'd kill someone." False dichotomy.

There is much contemporary testimony that ABC's, by nature, divide a couple in two--they prevent the unreserved giving of self that the marital embrace is supposed to entail. They are a witholding of oneself. The precipitous fall in marriage success rates since 1930 bears witness to the fact that ABC's work *AGAINST* marital fidelity, not FOR it.

The witholding of self that ABC's entail prevents the firm marital bond from forming in the first place, or erodes a marital bond that is already there.

God Bless.

LatinTrad

I'm sorry if I am mistaken, but it seems to me that people here, in appraising the use of ABC, are looking at it from the perspective of the use of the thing itself. The gun, in and of itself, is not evil, but can be put to good or bad use. Money, in and of itself, is not evil, but can be put to good or bad use. A condom (for example), in and of itself, is not evil; it is my opinion that whether or not it is put to "good" or "bad" use is a matter of intention, and depends in large part on intention. That seems to be the one thing that no one *against ABC* is really considering in this discussion.

Mor Ephrem,

With all respect, I don't think that your argument holds water at all.

The use of ABC is an ACTION, with a specific moral intelligibility. Murder, Fornication, Theft, and Eating Too Much are also ACTIONS with specific moral intelligibility.

The condom itself is not an action, but condomistic intercourse IS an action. A good telos or intention does not make any evil action good. In order to establish that it is morally licit to use ABC, you would have to establish that the ACTION, in and of itself, does not run contrary to the moral law.

The testimony of the orthodox Fathers and the plain words of Scripture do not make ANY allowances for the use of ABC. Ever. Therefore, I think we are deceiving ourselves, if we excuse ourselves on the basis of some alleged good intentions. Good intentions are useless when we turn to evil actions. Hence the famous saying about the road to hell . . . .

LatinTrad

Dear LT,

Very well. The following may sound dumb, but I have to wonder, though, why the Catholic Church will allow NFP and not ABC.

As I understand it, couples using NFP can restrict sexual relations to those times when conception is highly unlikely. Indeed, I've seen charts and read texts which say they can pinpoint what days of the menstrual cycle a couple can have sex on and definitely not get pregnant. Of course, having sex using NFP may be natural, and thus not contrary to the moral law in one sense, but is it our place to space children based on this? How is the restriction of sex (the two purposes of which are unitive and procreative) to times when, other than a Divine Act altering the woman's menstrual cycle or the life of either spermatozoa or the ovum, conception is scientifically not likely, perfectly alright, while using a condom is not? Is there something virtuous about restricting sex to a time when there is little to no chance at all of conceiving *and you know that and do it anyway*? Or else, is Almighty God prevented by a piece of rubber from accomplishing His Will? If the stats I've read over the years are correct, then the use of the condom is less effective as a method of birth control than NFP, and in that sense could be considered more conducive to the conception of a child than NFP (speaking purely in terms of the ability of each to prevent conception). Then what?

And did the Fathers and the Scriptures approve of NFP? I would think that the Fathers everyone is citing who stated that ABC is worse than murder because it prevents the conception of life from even being possible would also disapprove of NFP because, even if it is natural, it does the same thing, and the people engaging in that form of birth control know it and do it anyway. Is there positive patristic support for NFP on its own terms? Is there evidence in the patristic witness that the prohibition of "birth control" means all birth control, including NFP?

Mind you, my opinion on this subject resembles to a certain degree that of Andrew Rubis. I certainly don't think either ABC or NFP represent the ideal, and certainly I would advocate choosing NFP over ABC, but I simply don't think the issue is as black and white as Catholics believe (at least on paper) it is.

You will pardon me if this is poorly worded or confusing to you, I addressed similar thoughts on a thread on my website about the same topic, and it's exhausting discussing one topic on two fronts.

Mor Ephrem,

The key lies in distinguishing between the end and the means. Although the end (avoiding conception) may be the same, the means (NFP vs. ABC) are different. For an action to be moral, both the end and the means must be morally good. If one is good and the other is bad, then the action is evil.

The Church's teaching on NFP also needs clarification here. The Church teaches that a couple may abstain during the fertile periods of the cycle *ONLY* for "grave" reasons. Abstinence during the fertile periods--"the means"--is not intrinsically immoral. Nevertheless, the *end* needs justification--there needs to be some grave reason to justify this kind of selective abstinence. If a couple were to do this because of a lack of generosity (which may be common for all I know) then it would be immoral because the *end* would be immoral (the refusal of children without just cause).

For a couple that wishes to avoid conception for some just reason (maybe famine or something), then the "end" is OK. Then, since the "means" of NFP are not evil, the action of NFP under these conditions is morally allowable (OK end + OK means = OK action).

Now, with ABC, even if there were a just reason to avoid conception, the immoral nature of the *means* renders the action immoral. ABC as a "means" is intrinsically immoral because it is opposed to the meaning of the marital act. The marital act is supposed to say "I give myself totally to you, without reserve, and I receive you, totally, in return." ABC destroys that. ABC says "I withold myself from you, and refuse to receive you without reserve." With ABC, the marital embrace is essentially a lie.

I hope this clears it up a bit. OK end + OK means = OK action. OK end + bad means = bad action.

I don't know what the fathers would have said about NFP. I do know that there are ancient Irish traditions of abstinence that were employed during times of famine.

LatinTrad

The dichotomy that I'm using is to say, "I'm using pot to get high so that I don't kill anyone."

Would you condemn this person to the same degree as another person who turned down the pot and actually killed someone?

I think not. And that is my point. The first is guilty of pot-smoking. The second of murder.

To place the use of non-abortifacient ABC's in the category of mortal sin is an error.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

I'm surprised that you would accept my analogy and still try to maintain your position. My whole point was that the pot-smoker above is rationalizing, and deceiving himself. There is no true dichotomy between getting high and killing someone. He may choose to do *neither*. And don't tell me that the temptation may be "too strong" for him to resist, because that would be calling God a liar ("My grace is sufficient unto you").

Moreover, why do you assert that it is an error to place non-abortifacient ABC's in the catergory of mortal sin? As far as I knew, the universal Great Tradition teaches us that all sexual sins are deadly. St. Paul indicates as much. The Catholic Church in the west has always upheld this tradition--any offense against chastity is "grave matter." I thought that this was also upheld by modern E.Orth. teaching.

God Bless.

LatinTrad

Dear Andrew,

I understand your main argument and have already stated that I consider this a question of pastoral approach with a struggling sinner. But the above statement of yours which I quote, is very problematic. If what you write is true then the unaminous witness of the Fathers on contraception is also erroneous. I don't have the boldness to make such a statement. Please consider looking once more at their witness before you make such a statement.

Your brother in Christ's Light,

Wm. DerGhazarian