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

Dear Latin Trad,

I apologize for calling you an "existentialist." But you are still going to have to show me a non-divine "essence," when you locate one.

Some of our disagreement is of substance and some is shielded in terminology.

Let me propose the following thing:

Action: sexual intercourse between man and woman.
Context: monogamously married unrelated couple.
Purpose: unitive and procreative.
Name: God-sanctioned married sexual relationship.

Action: sexual intercourse between man and woman.
Context: unmarried man and unmarried woman.
Purpose: realization of erotic feelings.
Name: fornication: illicit sexual relationship between unmarried man and woman.

God-sanctioned married sexual relationship, Fornication, Adultery, and Incest all share the same action. But their names are quite different because their contexts and purposes are completely different.

In this dichotomy, the action (and our response to the action as a Church) does not allow us to judge it alone, but in its context and purpose. At that point we can judge it and give it a name, a name which indicates its level of acceptability to the Church. The canons even reflect these varying levels of disapproval by varying lengths of excommunication for each of these that are "mortal" sins.

So, for our subject, my system works likes this:

Action: use of artificial barrier or other non-abortifacient method to prevent conception.
Context: Married couple with no children and desiring no children.
Purpose: Prevent conception of any children.
Name: (fill in the blank)

Action: use of artificial barrier or other non-abortifacient method to prevent conception.
Context: married couple for whom conception could cause the death of mother and conceived child.
Purpose: Maintain marital bond, avoid temptation to adultery.
Name: (fill in the blank)


From your posts, it appears that you would fill in the blank the same way in both cases.

Obviously, I would not. I would give different "names" because of differing contexts and purposes.

So the egaged couple who have sexual relations did not have a context or purpose that ameliorated the name of their act (fornication) other than to parenthetically add the words "between two engaged people." Perhaps the Church's response and proposed rectification is more obvious (marriage), but it is still fornication, pure and simple.

That's the system that I would use.

Praying for you in Christ, as you pray for me in Christ,

Andrew

PS: The opinions that I will subsequently post have obviously been seen, and in some cases, approved by Orthodox hierarchs.

I appeal to all the brothers and sisters to speak in love.

Andrew

Ah, brother Andrew, I must take issue with your distinctions among action, purpose, and context.

We have the exact same distinction in traditional western moral theology, except for one thing: that which is decribed as an "action" must have moral definitude. Thus, "intercourse between a man and a woman" does not constitute an "action", because there IS NO SUCH THING as "intercourse between a man and a woman", abstracted from whether they are married or not. When describing the "action" (or "moral object"), one must include the WHOLE action, in all its moral specificity. Thus, "killing" is not an action (execution? war? self-defence? murder? parricide?), and neither is "sex". Whether the two people involved are married or not determines the moral nature of the action itself--it is not just a circumstance or context. Context, or circumstances, are those attendant things that we consider AFTER we have established the moral object!!

"Marital relations" is a moral object; so is "fornication," and so is "adultery". The first is good; the latter two are bad. We can give them whatever "names" we want; it is the NATURE of the action that is at stake here.

Having determined the nature of the action, and whether it is good or evil, in and of itself, we then proceed to what you termed the "purpose" and the "context" (which we call the "end" and the "circumstances"). For the action to be permissible in the concrete, 1) the moral object, or action-in-se, must be good; 2) the purpose must be good, and 3) the circumstances, or context, must also be good. Bad purpose or context can make an otherwise good action evil, but A GOOD PURPOSE OR CONTEXT CAN NEVER MAKE AN EVIL ACTION GOOD!!!!!

Now, contraception, or "use of artificial barrier or other non-abortifacient method to prevent conception," is not equivalent to the morally neutral thing referred to as "intercourse between a man and a woman." Why? Because the latter is not a moral object, but the former IS a moral object. How do we know that "contraception", in and of itself, has enough moral definitude to be a moral object?
1) Because the Scriptures tell us so.
2) Because the Fathers tell us so.
3) Because the Church tells us so.
4) I know this may catch some flack, but we know it because right reason tells us so.

What moral nature does contraception have? That of an evil moral object.

Therefore: NO PURPOSE OR CONTEXT CAN MAKE IT PERMISSIBLE.

That is the position of the Church; that is the position I am advocating.

Thus:

ACTION: Contraception. (Evil)
PURPOSE: Countering temptation to adultery. (Good)
CONTEXT: Married couple (good)--for whom conception would cause death of mother and child (irrelavent because of the evil nature of the action).

The evil moral object cannot be justified by a good end or circumstances.

I would also like to remind folks, once again, that contraceptives fail all the time anyway--to use contraception in these circumstances is to play Russian roulette with one's wife's life.

Please pray for me.

LatinTrad

"This is a hard saying; who can accept it?" --John 6

Andrew, if your hypothetical husband has an STD, let's say, AIDS, he ought not to be having sexual relations with *anyone* - his faithful wife or otherwise - for the remainder of his cheatin' life, or until a cure is found, whichever comes first. He has no right to expose his wife to the risk of contracting that disease.

And there is *always* a risk - the only 100% sure way of avoiding it is abstinence.

Maybe not the best example ...

There should be NO contraceptives allowed...PERIOD...natural or artificial.

Because God says so...the Bible says so...the Fathers says so...and the CHURCH says so.

There should be NO good reason to use contraceptives. (including not limited to...condoms, pills, sponges, vastestomy, tying of ovarian tubes, etc.).

There is NO true exchange of LOVE between couples of they use contraceptives. Instead it's more of an act of LUST. Because sacramental love between husband and wife MUST BE OPEN to procreation of a beloved LIFE. The LIFE is a FRUIT of the love that's shown and expressed by a husband and wife...it's the fruit of the ONE-NESS of the couple ("so that the two will become ONE").

If one puts the barrier to that fruit...then what's the point of the expression if it's not there (because of lust)?

Now look at the mess that the world is in...for having selfish love...

Soo..I find that...

that Andrew's analogy of action on the 9th page to be silly. Because there is NO goodness out of contraceptives...for any reason whether one thinks it's good or not.

It's no wonder why so many people convert to Orthodoxy because the Orthodox Church is so easy and relaxed on the moral issue of contraceptives....while the Catholic Church is remaining strong and steadfast against the beating waves of the storms of contraceptives, abortion, etc. attacking against her. That assures me that she (Catholic Church) is on much STRONGER foundation...that hell will not prevail against her.

And on the other hand...there are waves of converts over to the Catholic Church because other Churches aren't strong enough to stand up and speak against the evils of contraceptives and abortion.

It's pretty black and white here...just as Jesus would have preferred...He even mentioned that He VOMITS on the lukewarm people. Lukewarmness is the "grey area" way of thinking. Either you pick white or black...hot or cold...not warm or grey.

Even the Old Testament have spoken against contraceptives...take it from a guy (folks, I'm bad in O.T. section)...who was chastised by God for "spilling his seed." It's not the spilling of this man's seed that sought punishment from God...but because it's a contraceptive act.

So the belief against contraceptives doesn't start at the early Christian Church...it starts way way back in the Old Testament times.

God is still speaking to us against it...all the way from Judaism Old Testament to Christian New Testament...

Andrew, I quite frankly feel very sorry for you...to be in an Orthodox Church that tolerates contraceptives. My goodness.

To me...I'd think that the Catholic Church is a TRUE ORTHODOX Church!!! That we are so Orthodox to the faith...we strongly adhere to the teachings of God against contraceptives.

Oh...the Orthodox Church also tolerates divorce and remarriage. Oh well..that just goes totally against what JESUS have taught us!!

Let's see what else the Orthodox Church tolerate....anyone know????

I'm not speaking against the Orthodox Church...I'm speaking against the EGO that Andrew have that he think he's "MIGHTY" right because he's a member of the Orthodox Church.

I think his posts against Becky Ann is so demeaning and egoistic.

I'm just thankful at the moment to be on the solid foundation.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
YES, I'M DEAF BUT NOT DUMB.

Andrew,
I would like to know what fellowship light has with darkness. Yes we should be loving that is a given. But! We are to speak the "TRUTH" in love. And to some that is offensive.

I have always tried to be kind and polite, even when I rip someone apart! lol
Stephanos I

Spundas,
Would you please explain yourself as to what you mean "there should be no contraceptives natural or artifical" .
What do you imply by "natural" do you mean NFP natural family planing?
This is well within the right of the Christian couple to use the time of the body's infertility to limit the number of children they have.
Although I agree with you as to the Catholic Church adhering to the truth in this matter, I find that post confusing.

Stephanos I

SPdundas: Right on the money, brother. (EXCEPT for one thing. Andrew was not the one who slammed BeckyAnn--that was brother Theophilos.) Thank you so much for coming in on this thread in support of true Orthodoxy!!

Stephanos I: NFP is not a contraceptive. It is a strategy of abstinence, that can only be employed for grave reasons. When SPdundas said "no contraceptives, artificial or natural" I think he was referring to the herbs and natural potions that can prevent conception.


God bless all,

LatinTrad

spdundas:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Please provide evidence that the Orthodox Church has officially condoned the use of artificial contraception.

Thank you.

In Christ,
Theophilos

It's no wonder why so many people convert to Orthodoxy because the Orthodox Church is so easy and relaxed on the moral issue of contraceptives....while the Catholic Church is remaining strong and steadfast against the beating waves of the storms of contraceptives, abortion, etc. attacking against her. That assures me that she (Catholic Church) is on much STRONGER foundation...that hell will not prevail against her.

Of course, because the only reason people convert to Orthodoxy is because then they can use contraceptives. It has nothing to do with the actual Orthodox faith, and how those people might possibly consider it more authentic.

I don't want to be rude, but this is a very silly remark because the implication is that many (if not most) people who convert to Orthodoxy are simply sex-crazed dummies.

Oh...the Orthodox Church also tolerates divorce and remarriage. Oh well..that just goes totally against what JESUS have taught us!!

An annulment may not be a divorce on paper, but when you think of the vast number of annulments among US Catholics these days compared to years before the Second Vatican Council, it has basically become an ecclesiastical divorce. If not, then Catholics must admit one or more of the following: 1) priests are not doing a good enough job of catechising couples preparing for marriage, 2) very many Catholics are stupid and immature even in adulthood, or 3) people know how to work the system to get what they want, and the Church simply banks on the honesty of the people, when it should be extremely strict with regard to annulments almost to the point of not giving them out at all.

I'm not speaking against the Orthodox Church...I'm speaking against the EGO that Andrew have that he think he's "MIGHTY" right because he's a member of the Orthodox Church.

I don't think it is right for you to opine about Andrew's motives in this discussion, for based on

Andrew, I quite frankly feel very sorry for you...to be in an Orthodox Church that tolerates contraceptives. My goodness.

To me...I'd think that the Catholic Church is a TRUE ORTHODOX Church!!! That we are so Orthodox to the faith...we strongly adhere to the teachings of God against contraceptives.

I'm just thankful at the moment to be on the solid foundation.

one could say you are being as triumphalistic as you think he is, only with regard to the Catholic Church.

Mor Ephrem is correct that the annulment situation is scandalous. Annulment courts are not infallible by any stretch, of course, but the stuff that goes on there today cries out to Heaven for vengeance.

BUT--

Can we please get back on the topic of contraception? We had a highly charged discussion going, before the flack started to fly.

Spd:
Andrew's "Ego" and personal state-of-soul are not in question here. Neither are anybody else's. If there is anyone reading this thread who has been using contraception, hopefully through thought and prayer they will have the courage, grace, and humility to stop.

God bless all.

LatinTrad

Actually, Mor, I know of at least one person (possibly two) whose primary motive for converting to Orthodoxy was apparently the EO tolerance of contraception.

I say "apparently" but "almost certainly" would be more like it. This is based on these folks' own frank admission.

There were other factors involved, yes, but the catalyst, the thing that pushed 'em across the Bosphorus, was contraception.

Blessings,

ZT

Dear ZoeTheodora,

I don't deny your experience. It is entirely possible that people convert for the wrong reasons. But I don't think one can make as sweeping a generalisation about this as was made in the post I quoted, even when one has your friends' example. That's two converts. Not "so many".

For instance, if I had a couple of friends who examined Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and decided to become Catholic because there wasn't as much emphasis on asceticism, I wouldn't be able to conclude from that that the Catholic Church gets a lot of converts because those people (and the people of the Catholic Church in general) are sissies and are not willing to tolerate an empty stomach every once in a while, but rather would like to have the option of having a steak an hour before Communion and during Lent.

Both generalisations are too broad, and probably not true in the vast majority of cases.

Without intending any offence to my brothers and sisters--are there any more thoughts on the topic at hand? What do people think?

An ROCOR friend of mine (who shall remain nameless) was horrified when he found out that I had to defend the traditional teaching on contraception against Orthodox posters on the internet.

I think there might be something of a point here, however--in the absence of a primacy, and in the absence of a unified magisterium, what can one expect?

I don't know.

LatinTrad

Latin Trad:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

While I tend to agree with your arguments against contraception from an Orthodox perspective, I take exception to the following comment:

"I think there might be something of a point here, however--in the absence of a primacy, and in the absence of a unified magisterium, what can one expect?"

With all due respect, for every Orthodox theologian who has come out it in favor of the very -- and very carefully -- restricted use of artifical, non-abortifacient contraception, I could give you a list of dozens of Charles Currans, Hans Kungs, Karl Rahners, and Andrew Greeleys!

That said, I want publicly to tell you and Andrew how much I have enjoyed this dialogue.

In Christ,
Theophilos