www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why I feel inferior to Greek Orthodox

Brother Alex,

You are correct in your assumption.
Every act of sexual union must be open to procreation.
Couples who may not wish to conceive life, should obstain from that union during the 3-5 fertile days of every month.
I believe it's called Natural Family Planning.

Brad

Brad

I'm sorry, but that's contraception no matter what you want to call it. Having sex only with your wife when she's not ovulating is not being open to life, you are avoiding conception. I bet there are Fathers who would have condemned this.

I should probably just duck out of this conversation because I feel I will no doubt anger everybody for which I apologize. I guess what gets me is the Catholic Internet apologists like to use divorce and contraception as gotchas for the Orthodox. I guess I have two feelings in this regard:

I personally don�t go along with the idea of an annulment, and the last stats I saw said there were something like 50,000 to 60,000 annually in the United States alone. I have a hard time believing that there were that many marriages that never existed. Regardless, if this is the practice in the western church so be it. The East has a long standing practice which according to another thread I read about annulments in the Eastern Catholic Church was accepted by the west as legitimate. I am mystified as to why this is now being used as a proof by the RCC Internet apologists that Orthodoxy has departed from the apostolic tradition.

I think NFP is the preferable option to regulating childbirth. I also don�t think sex is only for procreation. I believe a priest should be able out of ekonomia allowed to let couples use other means of controlling conception when there are legitimate reasons for doing so like the health problems for the mother where a pregnancy runs real risks. I think telling such people to abstain or just accept the risk is not in their best interest.

Why I think this matters is this - the Catholic Church in my opinion is going to have to accept both these things should the churches ever reconcile.

I do support the Catholic position on artificial birth control, but I am wondering in print about something I have observed. So consider this as thinking out loud. I know a guy who reflects an attitude I have noticed in several conservative Catholics I know. He thinks he is proving that he is a good Catholic by having as many children as possible. The only problem is, he's a terrible father. He doesn't really like kids, has no self control, thinks sex is something he has an unlimited right to, and tends to view the kids as another weekend project he did around the house. I have great sympathy for his long-suffering wife who is a genuinely good lady. Is this guy really a good Catholic?

How can it be a sin to not have sex at a particular time? Is it then a sin to have sex when you know your wife isn't ovulating? This is nonsense, and you can't find a Father who says otherwise. And if you do, you shouldn't care, as they unanimously condemn artficial birth control, which you defend!

I do not do "natural family planning"; I do "supernatural family planning": let God worry about it, and accept being broke. But to equate it with contraception is ridiculous. And let us not forget that the most common means of artficial contraception is the birth control pill, which at least sometimes functions as an abortifacient.
-Daniel, who has decided his wife is faking it

You seem to want to read your own interpretation in to what I said. I didn't say anything about something being a sin. Here's the definition of contraception:

"use of any means of preventing sexual intercourse from resulting in conception."

Regulating the pattern of your sex life to occur only when your wife is not ovulating is contraception. You are doing so with the express purpose of not conceiving a child.

There were Fathers who said things like this:

That's Clement of Alexandria who in this case I would assume would not be for NFP. His concern I don't think was artificial birth control which you use as a point of distinction, I think his problem was with birth control period.

I'm also not defending birth control. I'm saying in isolated instances such as where pregnancy is a threat to the health of the mother, it is probably better to allow that couple out of ekonomia the ability to use something like the barrier method. This would be for the sake of keeping their marriage together and for the woman's health.

Again I think you're drawing a false distinction. NFP is contraception, it just uses natural means.

Here's the problem with the "ekonomia" answer, Rilian:

when is contraceptive sex ever a better option than self-control?

There are conditions that make pregnancy a very high risk to a woman as an example. Either an existing pre-condition or the result of complications from a previous pregnancy. In some cases Doctors have to recommend that some women do not take the risk of getting pregnant, it can be a significant threat to the life of the woman or the life of the infant (or both). Most of us don�t have to face this, but some do.

Abstinence certainly is an option, but not everyone is called to that. Abstinence in itself may very well lead to other sins because spiritually the people can�t handle it.

What I�m saying here is sometimes priests are called on to deal with situations where none of the options are good. Ekonomia is what gives them the pastoral leeway to find what is most acceptable and best for the people involved.

Rilian, are you married? Every married man is called to abstinence.

Trust me.

This is a basic problem in accepting this teaching, which is the crown jewel of all the teachings of the Church: we don't understand sex or marriage, and we think that abstaining from sex is somehow impossible or damaging. I tell you truly, as a father of two young children, that I have come to terms with lots of abstinence!

Anyway, here's another problem. Take a look at Romans 3:8. Paul is clear that one cannot do evil so that good may come. Right reason tells us that doing an evil act is evil, and thus to be avoided. The "ekonomia" solution you propose says "do evil." Sure, it cloaks it with ifs and buts and other considerations, but in the end it says "do evil." That's not Christian love.

Let's compare the ekonomia solution with Orthodox teaching on remarriage--the second or third marriages are celebrated in a penitential manner, thus acknowledging that divorce is a sin. Would you say that those who contracept should have sex in a penitential manner, acknowledging what they do is sinful? That would be interesting.

Goodness, I have so much to say about this issue, but, as my pastor says, it can't be sound-bited.

Athanasius, I�m married with two young children. Believe I�m well aware of what you speak. On top of that, per our spiritual father, my wife and I do not have sexual intercourse on any of the fasting days on the church calendar. Sorry if that�s too much information�

We�re not talking periodic abstinence though, which is certainly difficult in and of itself. I�m talking about permanent and total abstinence.

I don�t agree with your premise here. I don�t view non-life destructive contraception in and of itself to be intrinsically evil. Just as I don�t view NFP, which is a form of contraception, in and of itself to be evil (though there may have been church fathers who said both were). The argument I have seen presented here and elsewhere and which I think you�re making is that there is there is a qualitative moral distinction between the two. I don�t agree. I don�t think the issue is the mechanics of how conception is regulated, I think the issue is in the intention.

Yet we allow this specifically for the good of the penitents and with the hope that good will be born from this. I myself have soon good come from people who come from broken marriages who the church allows back in. I gather from the Eastern Catholics annulments thread that this was accepted by the Catholic Church as legitimate. It seems to me there�s an accession on both sides that good can come from this, though you seem to be arguing against that with your statement that Ekonomia is not Christian love.

Dear Rilian,


If contraception isn't an evil act, then why is there any need for ekonomia? You say earlier "I'm also not defending birth control. I'm saying in isolated instances such as where pregnancy is a threat to the health of the mother, it is probably better to allow that couple out of ekonomia the ability to use something like the barrier method. This would be for the sake of keeping their marriage together and for the woman's health."

Fine. But if contraception isn't an evil act, then why need we have any sort of restrictions on it at all? I was taking this as an admittal on your part that it is in fact an objectively disordered (read: evil) act.

One more point on a topic that can go on forever. We must agree that intention is not the only determinant of the goodness of an action. You say "I don�t think the issue is the mechanics of how conception is regulated, I think the issue is in the intention." Surely two actions can have the same intention yet be morally different? I can work hard to feed my family or steal to feed my family. In both cases, the intention is good, but stealing is sinful. I argue that for me and my wife to use a piece of rubber in our sacred act of marital union (which is a symbol of the relationship of Christ to his Church, according to Ephesians 5) so that we can delay the next child a few months is morally different than me and my wife foregoing marital union in order to delay the next child for a few months. The first is an attempt to take control, to dominate the nature that God gave us. The second is actually an acquiescence to the nature that God gave us. The first says "Honey, I want to enjoy your nicely shaped bits, but not your fertile bits." The second says "Honey, I want union with the whole you, but since we ought to avoid children for a little while (for good reason), I will forego the physical union for a time, thus not making you into an object for my pleasure, but valuing your entire person, body, soul, and spirit."

Annulments are another topic. To view them as a concession to Orthodox practice is incorrect, however improperly annulments may be granted these days. The declaration of nullity is an attempt to remain faithful to the words of Christ. I have some disagreements with the practice, at least in America, where it seems that the tribunals have made informed consent almost impossible to give. In other words, the canon lawyers have found ways in some dioceses to declare just about any marriage null. That's a problem my church needs to deal with, I think.

One more thought. I remember reading Fr. Meyendorff's book on marriage, and he said (along with "One shouldn't reject Humanae Vitae simply because it's papal" which made me laugh) something like that according to Catholic reasoning on this issue, one would have to reject airplanes, since flying isn't natural. It was a rare blunder for the eminent theologian, since to say that something is against nature means nothing else than to say that it is against reason, in Western theology. Flying in a plane is not against reason, but (the argument goes) contraception is.

I should stop writing. Nobody reads to the end of long posts anyway!

Athanasius, I agree, this could go on forever. I�ll just add a few more things.

This of course puts us back at square one, because it begs the question. What is contraception? Both sides in this argument are advocating a form of contraception. Is it evil to ever attempt in any way to try to avoid conception? That perhaps is the real crux of the issue. Your argument rests on the presupposition that one kind is okay and one kind is not.

You�re countering my argument with a scenario which I did not present to you. This is a completely different circumstance, so do I think the same pastoral advice is in order? Of course not.

I don�t view them this way, I view them as how the RCC deals with the same problem. What I was referring to was the fact that someone stated that at a Council (Florence I think), the Eastern practice was accepted as legitimate and continued in Eastern Catholic churches until the 18th or 19th centuries. This also to me is a real problem for putting forward the good cannot come from bad argument.

To have a fruitful dialogue, two parties must agree on the terms being used. If you insist on calling NFP [which again I don't practice] "contraception" I am afraid our conversation is useless. Contraceptive acts alter the very nature of the act by unnatural means . I do not see how periodic abstinence qualifies as such, and for what it's worth the Church teaches that NFP can be sinful if serious reasons do not exist for using it.
-Daniel [still no baby]

iconophile, here is the definition from Merriam-Websters:

Etymology: contra- + conception
: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation

That's it. Contraception means trying to prevent conception, it can be through natural or artificial means. I think I've tried to point this out several times.

If you don't regulate conception in any manner whatsover, you're talking about something different.

Dear Rilian,

Am I practicing contraception right now because I am deliberately not having sex with my wife? Rather than have sex, I choose to watch the White Sox. Is that contraceptive?

I believe that would be referred to as abstaining. Though I suppose you could say that abstention is a form of contraception, at least carried to its logical extreme. Practically though, I think we would both recognize that contraception is normally associated with the actual act of sexual intercourse.

I'm also curious about your argument that no good can come from evil. Would I be right in assuming that you are a pacifist?