www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Natural contraception 'effective'

I apologize.

I was attempting, miserably, to be ironic. I do not believe that the Orthodox Church teaches us that it is permissible to use contraception. Some of the Orthodox oppose it. I believe those who do are in the right.

I agree with you. It also points out that too many Catholics at the time were too complacent about their faith, and thus relied too much on the opinions of these clerics. It is very healthy that lay people have been digging into the study of the faith, whether through Bible studies, apologetics, theology of the body classes, or study groups of other sorts. So, this is a positive outgrowth of a very bad situation.

I understand that and have been mulling it over...

Michael,

I have to get back to work . . . I've stayed too long writing another post . . . but I just want to quickly thank you for that articulate, substantial and thoughtful reply to my question. Be well.

-- John

John,

And I understand the arguments against birth control. But, I just think that if one is going to argue against using birth control, then that must include all methods, including NFP. Also, one should then hold to the ancient canons and practices and forbid conjugal relations during menstration, pregnancy, and post-menopause. That would be much closer to following the early Church rigorously. Indeed, I suspect that the most traditional Orthodox opponents of birth control would hold to this view. I've read, and posted here, an article by an Orthodox priest that condemns birth control, NFP, and even the use of Viagra in old age. It is an intellectually consistent position and a tough one. I will admit that.

The problem with HV from my point of view is that it is inconsistent, self contradictory, and equivocal in numerous places. And I think the fact that it was such a poorly written and poorly argued document played a role in its not being received well.

Joe

I dare not judge anyone and I dare not fail to speak the truth.

Fair enough. Though we must say the same thing when looking at those who murder and commit theft. At least if we are to be consistent. I confess that this is what troubles me the most about Catholic teaching on this subject. I can see how one could argue that using contraception was venially sinful (to use the Latin terminology), a minor fault, or less than ideal. Indeed, I do believe that it is less than ideal. So is NFP (and the Catholic Church does teach that NFP is never an ideal. It is always a concession allowed by grave circumstances, but it is never something that is ideally good). The ideal would be to have conjugal relations without a care in the world as to whether pregnancy occurred or not. But the ideal is hard to live up to. And my problem is that it seems severe to say that the use of contraception is always a gravely, immoral act (damning one to hell).

Joe

I have yet to see any modern Catholic theologian arguing that procreation is the exclusive end of conjugal union. If anyone can produce such an animal, I'm curious what cave they have been in for the past forty years.

Bottom line: In Catholic theology, the unitive and generative meanings of the sexual act are inseperable. And even the generative dimension cannot simply be reduced to something purely biological. The human person - made in the image and likeness of God - is not a mere mass of cells resulting from the union of a sperm and egg! The union of persons results in another person, and is thus a trinitarian communion! There is tremendous mystery here that is beyond the examination of a microscope or petri dish.

As for the rejection of HV, I believe it sadly says more about the culture than it does about HV or the Church. And we are witnessing the bitter fruits (prophetically foretold) in the lives of millions.

As for moral accountability, I believe that is between the person and God. I personally believe the moral accountability of those who reject HV is at least slightly diminished given the pervasive attitudes concerning contraception in society. This was reflected in various pastoral directives from Rome regarding confession over the past few years.

As I understand it, this was also the shared understanding of Catholicism and Orthodoxy for 2000 years.

In ICXC,

Gordo

I have no doubt that contraception is a grave moral evil. The issue of God's judgment as to the particular individual is up to Him, just as it is for a murderer or thief. I can say that murder and theft are both grave moral evils without judging the soul of the individual. I would not, however, place Hitler along side someone who murdered another in passion. There are differences.

I can say from personal experience that being open to life is a very good thing. Is it difficult? Yes. Has it been a blessing for my marriage and for the many children I have. Yes.

I would ask for a clarification. To me, it sounds as if you are casting/implying judgment on those who decide they are unable to care for such a large family as somehow being faithless. It's great that your grandparents and others "trusted in God's providence." What about those who live in real, abject poverty, where the children they already have are literally in danger of starvation, or are deprived of many of the basic needs of daily existence? Should they follow the example of your grandparents and continue having children, even though they're unable to provide for the ones they already have? If they choose not to continue to have children, are they faithless and in danger of God's wrath? Now I know such circumstances don't apply in wealthy nations like the USA, but there are places where such circumstances do apply.

Ryan

This is the position I take and live by, as I indicated in my first (rather long) post on this thread. I oppose the contradictory conclusions of HV and believe the consistent teachings I find in the Early Church Fathers.


Again, I agree with you. In fact, your previous writings on this subject have helped me formulate and express my belief, diametrically opposed to yours but equally consistent.

My grandparents were quite poor. My grandfather worked in the steel mill until he was 75, I think. When cirmcumstances which you speak of exist, that seems to me just cause to space children through abstinence during a woman's fertile period.

By the way, the United States is going to be, and Europe already is, in trouble because of low birthrates.

Joe,

I have two thoughts here:

1. If it is truly the position of the fathers that all forms of family planning or ABC are wrong then that should be our position as well barring an extremely good reason. We don't suddenly decide to discard the fathers elsewhere when we find their statements inconvenient - we shouldn't do so now either.

2. Do you have a very good argument for why the fathers are unreliable in this area? If so, I would like to hear it. Moreover, what makes them unreliable here but reliable most everywhere else? Why hasn't their problem here "infected" other parts of their theology?

I am honestly curious about this because I think we have to be very careful when deviating from tradition, even if it would be more convenient to do so.

I hold the Church Fathers in high esteem. My reading of the Church Fathers in my theological studies (and at a Protestant seminary) played a tremendous role in my conversion to Apostolic Christianity from Protestantism. However, they were not infallible. They were sinners just like us, and they were prone to error. While I would privilege the writings of the early Church Fathers over any subsequent era, I think we need to beware of granting them the degree of intellectual deference that is due to God, and God alone.

Ryan

"Again, I agree with you. In fact, your previous writings on this subject have helped me formulate and express my belief, diametrically opposed to yours but equally consistent."

A good ear is hard to find. It can be difficult to hold passionately to a belief while carefully listening to those you disagree with.

This disagreement is not one on the fundamental nature of our faith. If it was, then it would be impossible to be equally consistent with one another. It is about the practice and interpretation of our faith. I think it would be good to keep in mind our human limitations in knowing God's will in our lives.

Because there is disagreement on such a non-fundamental matter, it does not mean that one person is more or less holy than the other, or that the other person is living a life of sin. It would be a mistake to privately weigh the matter in such a fashion, even if such thoughts are not expressed not on the forum.

It is good for man to love his wife, to be fruitful and multiply, but our culture does not appreciate the old ways. Large families are scoffed at, it's said that the parents are depriving their children of the luxuries they could have if there were only one or two children. Some say that large families are unnecessary because we have an urban culture and not an agricultural one. Personally, I balk at such talk. I want a large family. But is it immoral for a person to desire a small family? Is it less immoral (or not immoral) for a person to use medical knowledge rather than medical technology to pace births, how about to prevent them altogether?

I don't think such questions can be swept aside universally. My personal opinion would be that NFP is moral if certain conditions are met, and medical technology is unconditionally immoral in one condition: when its intended end is to thwart the great miracle of co-creation. Many here cannot agree with those statements, for good reason too.

But all of this is talk, most of this can be reduced to opinion and the interpretation of our faith. I get the sense that we've fleshed out the issue well enough. This is going to be my last post on this thread, I don't think I could contribute any more without constantly repeating myself in different ways.

In Christ,

Terry