www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Birth Control

Do the Eastern Catholic Churches view the use of birth control more similar to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches?

Eastern and Roman Catholics are in union of faith and morals as taught by the magisterium of the Church; therefore, the use of birth control by any Catholic of any liturgical tradition is against the teaching of the Church.

According to the Orthodox understanding, an essential element of the marital union and the fruit of the love between man and wife are children, the birth and upbringing of which are one of the main goals of marriage (Ibid., X 3-4). In accordance with this view, the Orthodox Church considers the freely willed rejection of childbirth and the artificial termination of pregnancy inadmissible. As the equivalent of murder, abortion is unequivocally rejected by the Church, which insists on the personal responsibility of all who take part in this act: the woman, the man (in the case of his consent) and the doctor (Ibid., XII,2).

Statement of the First European Catholic-Orthodox Forum on the theme:‘The Family: A Good for Humanity’
Trent, Italy, 11-14 December 2008

What do they mean by "the freely willed rejection of childbirth"?

Good question.

All Orthodox Churches allow the temporary rejection of conceiving children. This can be accomplished by such methods as Natural Family Planning or the use of non-abortive means. But it needs to be something temporary and it needs to be well justified.

The decision never to conceive children is major sin. If one of the spouses has this intention, either at the time of marriage or later, then the other spouse may obtain a divorce and remarry.

But.... I think that what the statement is saying is connected with abortion.... it is not expressed too clearly, is it.

Father Ambrose-

In my effort to distinguish the differences, I was wanting to make sure I understand your response correctly. It sounds like you are saying a "temporary rejection" is permissible through methods such as Natural Family Planning. But is it also implied that it would be with the understanding that the couple would at some point have to resume an effort to either have children or at least not prevent conception?

Also in reference to Orthodox teaching, am I also to assume since the word "natural" was used this would imply that the use of the "pill" would never be permissible, even if it was used in the same manner as a temporary delay in the prevention of pregnancy?

Thank you.

My understanding is that the pill is potentially abortifacient and therefore not acceptable for Orthodox. NFP and condoms are acceptable.

Joe

In my experience all of the above practice a version of "don't ask, don't tell". Ditto for in vitro.

Dear JW55,

I have to be honest with you and say that I actually included NFP merely for politeness' sake. We know from the Natural Family Planning Office of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops that it is estimated that between 2% and 3% of married Roman Catholics use NFP. As you can imagine the Orthodox who use it would be a much smaller percentage. The statistics show that it has pretty much been a failure in being accepted and practised by the Catholic faithful and the Orthodox, seeing this rejection, are unlikely to adopt it.

It would be hard to accuse someone like Theresa Notare of not being careful with her statistics. She is the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

from
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/prolife/article_05.asp

"You can probably guess-timate that 2 or 3 percent of Catholic women use it [Natural Family Planning]," says Theresa Notare, assistant director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."


PS: I was going to say that we are getting off topic but I see you are the originator of the thread.

"How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!"

*Referring to the fact that only 3% of Catholics follow the Church's teaching.

Can it be so?! 97% of American Catholics have not found the gate that leads to eternal life!! Doctor, the need for mission is surpassingly urgent!

I agree.

Precisely what do you mean by "temporary rejection of conceiving children?" Considering that might be useful to understanding the Catholic Church's teaching on the matter. Do you mean that a couple does not have intercourse when a woman is fertile or do you mean that a couple has intercourse during an infertile period? If you mean the former, indeed there could be a temporary rejection of children. But couples are not bound by the moral law to have as many children as physically possible. If you mean the latter, I don't see that having marital intercourse at a time when the woman is unlikely to conceive is a "temporary rejection of children," when one is engaging in an act, the end of which (simply biologically speaking) is by its very nature ordered to conception. That is to say, the marital act is by its very nature proconception.

I do see, however, that using mechanical or chemical devices in marital intercourse is by its very nature contraception, i.e. against conception because they are attempting to thwart the very end of the marital act.

The Catholic-Orthodox statement quoted above used the phrase "freely willed rejection of childbirth"

Statement of the First European Catholic-Orthodox Forum on the theme:‘The Family: A Good for Humanity’
Trent, Italy, 11-14 December 2008

I changed that to "temporary rejection of conceiving children" but I would not use the word "rejection" under these circumstances.

It's hard to know what the official Statement meant but what I meant was the temporary use of conception control.

This is germane to the topic, to a certain extent.

Would the Catholic Church be willing to come into unity with the Orthodox Church while the Orthodox maintain their permission for the faithful to employ non-abortive means of contraception and if the Orthodox continue to permit divorce and a second sacramental marriage?

It seems to me that it was nuanced enough to leave open the possibility that contraception is a sin. That certainly would be consistent with much of what one could expect from the first thousand years of the undivided Church and from most of Christianity until the Lambeth conference in the 1920s. Those are the facts as I see them.



I would call that abstinence.