Do Eastern Catholics have to accept the Roman Catholic teaching on birth control?

God Bless,

Jenny

Jenny,
To be blunt, yes.

We are Catholics so we hold to the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

There are a few Eastern Catholics who would disagree with this, but in the end I think they are wrong.

David

Dear Jenny,

I think we should first determine why the majority of Roman Catholics don't obey their Church's teachings on birth control and why so many have abortions as well . . .

Byzantine Catholics accept the Church's teachings on these issues as a matter of course.

The Orthodox Church has a variable understanding of artificial birth control and today Orthodox Christians are free to practice it in conjunction with the guidance of their spiritual father etc.

The Orthodox aren't, today, as strict as the Catholic Church on this matter.

If I'm wrong, our Orthodox posters are free to disagree with me, amicably and civilized like .

Alex

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Hi David,

I thought that would have to be the case, but I saw a post saying that Byzantine Catholics don't have to hold to Purgatory and I know there are certain other doctrines Eastern Catholics view differently (like original sin), so I wasn't sure if there were some doctrines which Eastern Catholics were required to believe and some they weren't.

God Bless,

Jenny

Hi Alex,

Why do you think that so many Roman Catholics ignore this teaching of the church? The majority of Roman Catholics I know (even the ones who faithfully attend Mass and adhere to other teachings of the church) use birth control. I don't know any Eastern Catholics well enough to know who uses birth control and who doesn't.

Also, do you know why the Orthodox Church has changed its teaching regarding birth control?

God Bless,

Jenny

A couple of interesting articles on this page by an Armenian Catholic:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Articles1.html

Towards the bottom of the page:

"Is Contraception Orthodox?"

and a follow-up to a critique of the article.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Jenny,

As for RC's who ignore this teaching, I think they might feel that the Church has no place in their bedroom.

They might also feel that it is (not) fine for celibate priests (a number of whom aren't doing a very good job at being celibate) to promulgate how married Catholics should or should not organize their family lives.

I've also read articles by Catholic theologians who don't agree with the Church's official position on this matter. There were Bishops' Conferences, as you know, that voiced disagreement with Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae when it first came out.

Catholic bishops but mostly priests have told me that when people come to them in confession and tell them they use artificial birth control and are otherwise trying to live a good Christian life, they give them absolution readily.

As one bishop told me, "Religion can't solve 100% of these human issues."

The Orthodox are absolutely against abortion and abortifacient methods of birth control.

They have never pronounced against the use of other artificial means of birth control and never will.

Even "Humanae Vitae" is not an infallible statement that could not be changed in future.

The "natural law" presuppositions on which it is based is widely debated by Catholic theologians.

Alex

Alex wrote:


The Synod of Bishops of the OCA stated in 1992:

http://www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/d.../10-miami-1992/synodal-affirmations.html

"Married couples may express their love in sexual union without always intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a foetus already conceived."

Notice the wording: "foetus." This makes the Pill acceptable even though it often works by preventing the implantation of the fertilized ovum.

Remember, it was the Pill which revolutionized Society in the 1960's and created the uproar against "the Church in the bedroom." Dissent grew in the Church against not only the traditional Orthodox-Catholic view on contraception but also against the Church's teachings on pre-marital sex and homosexuality and abortion.

How can one reconcile a pro-life position and the use of the Pill?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Here is what the saintly Archbishop Joseph (Raya) has written on the subject in his book "Crowning: The Christian Marriage", which is used by the Melkite Archdiocese in its marriage prep courses:

_________________________________________________

Crowning-Birth Control

In a world where eroticism dominates the hearts and minds of men and women, it is almost impossible to honor the Christian vision of a sexuality more precious than pleasure and more honorable than social necessity. In our days, the problems of birth control are heart rending.

In his praiseworthy attempt to counteract a sexual morality falsified by a secularized society and atheistic propaganda, Pope Paul VI, who at the time of the Second Vatican Council had reserved to himself the final decision on birth control, called upon a papal commission to advise him before publishing the official Church doctrine.

Over three quarters of the members, chosen by the Pope for their wisdom and reliability, offered the majority opinion endorsing a carefully qualified use of birth control, and proposed a revision of the current unqualified condemnation.

Pope Paul VI, however, disregarded their advice and published the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, maintaining the negative position. There is a present a painful tension between the supporters of rigidity in this matter, and those who believe it is unjustified.

The Byzantine ceremony of Crowning glorifies Christian chastity. Chastity means integrity of the human relation, integration of the forces of life into the personalistic aspects of nuptial love, which leads the couple into the Kingdom, into the peace and harmony of life. Both fertile and childless couples go beyond the mere functional: the combine the instinctive and passionate movements of their love, integrating them into a single act of ascent of pure goodness. It is not in spite of marriage, but in its fulfillment in peace, harmony and supreme joy that couples live the supernatural and holy reality of their union, chastity.

In the embrace of love, Christian couples are chaste. They are perfectly and entirely for each other. "I am my Beloved�s and my Beloved is mine" (Canticle of Canticles). In genuine faith, they assume their human and spiritual responsibilities, and choose the best ways, pleasing to God, to achieve what they have set out to do. Birth control is in some way their responsibility. Vatican Council II has clearly established that conscience is the most sacred core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths.

The theologian Paul Evdokimos, in his study on the "Sacrament of Love", summarizes the attitude of Eastern theology on birth control: The Church "addresses herself to evangelical metanoia, and hopes to change man and woman into a new creation, to render them charismatic; She exorcises demonic powers and protects the Gate of Life; She discerns among the spirits, and shows the pathways to ultimate liberation; She does not define the rules of social life, and does not prescribe panacaeas. . . " (p.175). The Church should never refuse to advise when advice is sought, but should not try to manipulate the intimacy of husband and wife. Patriarch Maximos IV of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem proclaimed at the Council of Vatican II, "The Church does not penetrate into the nuptial chamber. She stands at the door."

The Byzantine Church does indeed believe that the Sacrament of Crowning establishes the man and woman as prophets, king and queen of supernatural worth, and robes them with the Royal Priesthood of Christ. Their dignity is real. Consequently, their vocation will be to form personal decisions, and to judge situations, in order to find solutions to the individual circumstances of their lives.
__________________________________________________

http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

Birth Control: How do Melkites view birth control?

Bishop John's Answer: In response to your question, let me say that as Melkite Catholics, we freely embrace the moral teachings of the One Catholic Church of the East as of the West. We find that our own traditions support the teachings of the Church in ways that add to our celebration of faith.

Since Pope Paul VI promulgated the encyclical Humanae vitae in 1968, volumes have been written by way of response. In the last few years, the wisdom of his words has become more and more apparent. In our Melkite celebration of marriage, we begin by praying with the Psalmist that the couple might one day "see their children's children like olive branches around their table." This poetic language captures the fundamental values of both the unitive and procreative aspects of the sacramental marital union. Just prior to crowning the couple, the priest prays that the Father will stretch forth his hand and make the two one in flesh granting them fair children for education in the faith and fear of God. The symbol of the marriage crown speaks to the glory and honor of their chaste love that is seen as a sublime gift from the Father. Our liturgy proclaims the truths of marital love that is rich in meaning and challenge.

You might agree that we live in a culture that presents great challenge to Christian couples as they live out their commitments to one another in marriage. Human sexuality is poorly appreciated in our modern culture. In Humanae vitae, the Pope writes: "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil." This moral teaching poses a true challenge to many in our modern culture. We hope to deal with the issues with compassion and truth. Anything less detracts from God-given values.

In his recent writings, Pope John Paul II has emphasized the fundamental value of the Christian family as a microcosm of the church itself. The theological insights of the Holy Father deserve the serious consideration of every serious Christian as we search for the fullest meaning of married life. I recommend that you read what is contained in The Catechism of the Catholic Church: Nos. 2368-2371. God bless you.

Dear Dave,

The problem I see with any theological discussion of birth control is that it doesn't seem to get beyond the reified realm of theologians and bishops.

So what if Paul VI said this, and Archbishop Raya made qualified statements on that?

At the end of the day, we are left with celibate hierarchs saying what they like on the one hand, and the majority of the Laos or People of God doing what they do on the other.

It's like the Church proclaiming a certain teaching that the majority of its members doesn't accept in practice.

Should the Church excommunicate the lot of them?

One theologian at the University of Toronto once said that those Catholics who practice artificial birth control are OBJECTIVELY outside the Church.

But because they practice it in "invincible ignorance" then that means they are still, in reality, members of the Church in good standing.

And what was the number of angels that could stand on the head of a pin again?

Alex

That's not how I read it. They said it couldn't interfere with a foetus already *conceived*. An unimplanted but conceived foetus can be killed by the Pill, so hence it follows the pill is forbidden.

anastasios

To Anastasios,

A "foetus" by definition is implanted in the womb. Until then it is a zygote. I have never read anywhere where those Orthodox who accept contraception have anything against the Pill. After all, the Pill was what moved so many against the traditional Orthodox-Catholic teaching on contraception.

To Alex,

Maybe so many reject the Church's teaching because they do not really realize what they're doing (the abortifacient nature of the Pill, for example). And because so many of us seem so wiling to accept the innovative view that contraception is okay.

For a comprehensive listing of info on contraception and pro-life issues, see:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ207.HTM

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Dave,

Or perhaps they know what they are doing, and are doing it consciously.

I don't know.

As you know, I want children and keep as far away from artificial birth control methods as possible.

We don't even use balloons for birthday parties any more . . .

Alex

Jenny,

I know others have said that Eastern Catholics do not have to Purgatory and other things, like original sin, but I challenge them, here and now, to prove this from the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

If you look, we have the idea of Purgatory already, it just isn't spelt out for us in the legalistic terms that the Roman Catholic Church chooses to use.

As for Original Sin, I believe that if you look it up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will see that the idea shown there is very close to the Eastern understanding.

So the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not necessary for the Eastern Catholics, that is we believed it before it was proclaimed.


Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear David and Jenny,

West and East hold the same "substance" of faith and in this we are perfectly united.

But as to how we understand that same substance and express our respective spiritual patrimonies - the East differs from the West in every detail, including in how we understand the Trinity.

We pray for the dead, as does the West, yet "Purgatory" is a foreign idea for us.

We believe in the total holiness of the Mother of the Word Incarnate and liturgically celebrate the Conception of St Ann and the Dormition of the Mother of God and Her being taken to heaven, body and soul, by the hand of Her Son. We consistently believed this for centuries before Rome came to define those doctrines in the way it did.

So while we don't express our faith using the new Roman dogmas, we have always maintained the ancient Apostolic understanding of the Mystery of the Salvation of Christ Who brings us into the life of the Holy Trinity through His Incarnation by His Most Holy Mother to enable us to participate in His Body that is the Church of the Saints of all ages.

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DTBrown:
[QB] http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

Birth Control: How do Melkites view birth control?

Bishop John's Answer:<<<

I think we've been through the Bishop John Says routine before. Bishop John is a fine man, and a good pastoral bishop, but very much out of tune with the rest of the Melkite synod, as you know quite well. If you were to ask who has greater stature within the Melkite Greek Catholic Church--John Elya or Joseph Raya, I don't think that you would have much of a contest. And that you also know very well.

Dear Stuart,

Archbishop Raya is truly my ideal of a great Bishop of the East.

I particularly love his work on the Akathist to the Name of the Lord Jesus in which he included scriptural "Breaths" and meditations.

Although, as I've said, I don't want to hear anything about "no birth control."

Any suggestions on how best to conceive, Mr. Know-it-all?

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[QB]Dear Stuart,

>>>Archbishop Raya is truly my ideal of a great Bishop of the East.

I particularly love his work on the Akathist to the Name of the Lord Jesus in which he included scriptural "Breaths" and meditations.

Although, as I've said, I don't want to hear anything about "no birth control."<<<

In reviewing Kyr Joseph's words, I think we need to focus on the following paragraphs:

In the embrace of love, Christian couples are chaste. They are perfectly and entirely for each other. "I am my Beloved�s and my Beloved is mine" (Canticle of Canticles). In genuine faith, they assume their human and spiritual responsibilities, and choose the best ways, pleasing to God, to achieve what they have set out to do. Birth control is in some way their responsibility. Vatican Council II has clearly established that conscience is the most sacred core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths.

****

Kyr Joseph's quote from Evdokimos is also very important:

The Church "addresses herself to evangelical metanoia, and hopes to change man and woman into a new creation, to render them charismatic; She exorcises demonic powers and protects the Gate of Life; She discerns among the spirits, and shows the pathways to ultimate liberation; She does not define the rules of social life, and does not prescribe panacaeas. . . " (p.175).

as is Kyr Joseph's commentary:

The Church should never refuse to advise when advice is sought, but should not try to manipulate the intimacy of husband and wife. Patriarch Maximos IV of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem proclaimed at the Council of Vatican II, "The Church does not penetrate into the nuptial chamber. She stands at the door."

The last paragraph, however, is the kicker:

The Byzantine Church does indeed believe that the Sacrament of Crowning establishes the man and woman as prophets, king and queen of supernatural worth, and robes them with the Royal Priesthood of Christ. Their dignity is real. Consequently, their vocation will be to form personal decisions, and to judge situations, in order to find solutions to the individual circumstances of their lives.

****

So, respect for the vocation of the couple crowned in Christian marriage requires respect for their unique roles as king and queen of their little realm, priests of the domestic Church, called upon to make serious moral decisions "in Christ", according to their needs. As Kyr Joseph notes, the way of the Eastern Churches is not to rigidly bind all to a juridical code, nor is it to prescribe panacaeas. Rather, it is to hold up an evangelical ideal, a icon of a way of life, and to encourage all to strive towards it, recognizing that not all are at the same point in their spiritual development, and that "one size does not fit all". The Church advises, it exhorts, but in the end, it has to recognize that it cannot intrude into the nuptial chamber, just as His Beatitude Patriarch Maximos IV said so eloquently at Vatican II. The decision, in the end, belongs to the couple, arrived at through prayer and contemplation, consistent with the Church's constant respect for human life. But it is clear that the Christian East places its emphasis on the chastity of married life, and on the intent with which the married couple approach such intimate decisions, than it does on the means by which they choose to implement those decisions. Contraception is not necessarily an invitation to promiscuity, nor is it necessarily a renunciation of the purposes of Christian marriage, any more than the use of natural family planning, or even the renunciation of any sort of family planning is an endorsement of Tradition. A married couple can engage in NFP solely for the purpose of avoiding childbearing altogether, so that they might indulge in selfish pursuits (an "enhanced lifestyle"). Conversely, a couple might decide, after prayerful consideration, that the use of an artificial contraceptive is the best way for them to space out their childbearing, so that they can more fully live their vocations as husband and wife, mother and father. And, of course, outside of marriage, it makes not one whit of difference what sort of family planning one uses--the act itself is still sinful.

So, it is impossible to make a priori pronouncments in this case; each one is sui generis, and depends upon the circumstances of the couple, and the reasons for, and means by which they reach the decision that they believe is right for them.

Dear Stuart,

But still no advice on how best to conceive.

I can understand this in Kyr Joseph's case. But you . . .?

Thanks for the painstaking presentation, Professor, and may God bless you and yours always!

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[QB]Dear Stuart,

>>>But still no advice on how best to conceive.<<<

Work, work, work. Nasty job, but somebody's got to do it. Close your eyes, and think of Canada, or something.

>>>I can understand this in Kyr Joseph's case. But you . . .? <<<

I've already notched my gunstock twice, thank you.

>>>Thanks for the painstaking presentation, Professor, and may God bless you and yours always!<<<

Somehow, Alex, I get the sneaky suspicion that you are laughing at the Irish-Catholic preoccupations of your American cousins.

Comment:

I'm married. I can't imagine ruining marital intimacy by using contraception.

Question:

If the Church issues "legalistic" rulings against murder, homosexuality, abortion, etc., then why can't it make an accross-the-board ruling against contraception?

Comment for Dave:

Several Orthodox priests with whom I have communicated have indicated that they were taught the pill is wrong and can never be used, and this is what they tell their flock.

In Christ,

anastasios

Only for Alex:

Simply "rositas."

Now, that's pregnant with meaning!


AmdG

John Paul II's "theology of the body" is glorious and after being exposed to it, my wife and I can't imagine ever poisoning our love with contraception. It is revolting and immoral. So what if all the people in the pews are not obedient? If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you? The Christian faith is not determined by what the majority do in their private life. The Christian faith is determined by our King Jesus and guarded by those he set in authority. I'm preaching to the choir, I know. But I find it downright discouraging to hear Eastern Christians using their "easterness" to cop out of what is plainly part of the eastern deposit of faith regarding sexual ethics. No Christian prior to the last century ever questioned this given moral attitude against artificial contraception. This is part of the faith once delivered to the saints.

yours in Christ,
Marshall

Stuart wrote:


I don't think it's a matter of "my Bishop is better than your Bishop," Stuart. Someone asked what the position of Eastern Catholics was. You cited one. I cited another.

I have a lot of respect for Archbishop Raya. That doesn't mean he is correct on all points especially when he dissents from traditional Orthodox-Catholic teaching on artificial contraception. He obviously joined the bandwagon when almost everyone turned against the traditional teaching when Paul VI issued _Humanae Vitae_. I repeat (and no one has addressed this except for Anastasios): if the invention of the Pill was enough to make some Christians reconsider the traditional teaching on artificial contraception, how is that rationalized when we now know that one of the way the Pill works is to sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum? For example, see:

http://www.icgold.net/mother/pill_abortifacient.html

Paul VI was right and prophetic. Those who threw out the traditional teaching on artificial contraception in their rush to embrace the new technology were wrong (including the dear Archbishop).

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Anastasios wrote:


I'd love to see such remarks from Orthodox on the net. Any webpage references?

Everything I've seen so far has been to put down the Catholic understanding as "legalistic." Surprisingly, some Orthodox moral theologians allow for the use of the "morning-after pill" in emergency situations which essentially is a stronger dose of the hormones used in the Pill (with the goal of preventing implantation.)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by anastasios:
[QB]Comment:

>>>I'm married. I can't imagine ruining marital intimacy by using contraception.<<<

That is very good. It is, I hope, a decision you and your wife made together, in faith and love, as the path that was correct for your development in holiness. Realize, though, that one size really does not fit all, and what is right for you may not be right for other couples equally determined to live in holiness according to the gifts that God gave them.

>>>Question:

If the Church issues "legalistic" rulings against murder, homosexuality, abortion, etc., then why can't it make an accross-the-board ruling against contraception?<<<

That reason should be obvious: in each of those cases, we are either dealing with a practice which is condemned in Scripture (murder, homosexuality) or which has been associated with a practice proscribed in Scripture (abortion). With contraception, we are in a grey area. Certainly the Church has consistently spoken against contraception as it was practiced at various places and at various times (mainly because abortion was the only effective contraceptive), but in point of fact in the oikonomia even of the Latin Church tended to be more flexible (especially from the 19th century onward, when women became the backbone of the Church, cf. Eugene Podles on the subject). The fact is, the East has a different way of dealing with morally difficult and ambiguous situations: it holds up an ideal and tries to help the faithful live up to it, while the West issues legal injunctions (usually full of useful loopholes) and then walks away.

Comment for Dave:

>>>Several Orthodox priests with whom I have communicated have indicated that they were taught the pill is wrong and can never be used, and this is what they tell their flock.<<<

This is true, and there is nothing wrong with their approach, provided it is noted that it is their own particular understanding of Church teaching. There is no definitive Orthodox ruling on the matter, and as Arcbishop Joseph's position vs. that of Bishop John shows, there is no uniform Eastern Catholic position, either.

Anastasios wrote:


And Stuart replied:


Question for Stuart:

Those who feel that the Pill is wrong to use because it can cause a fertilized ovum not to implant are only following "their own particular understanding of Church teaching"? It might be wrong...but then again it might not be wrong. Is that what you're saying?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Stuart wrote:

I]in point of fact in the oikonomia even of the Latin Church tended to be more flexible (especially from the 19th century onward, when women became the backbone of the Church, cf. Eugene Podles on the subject).[/I]

Stuart, I presume you are referring here to Leon Podles who wrote a book and several articles on The Feminization of the Church. I do not accept many of his theses along these lines and think he is rather off base. I have a few posts on my own blog giving some of my "whys" for my disagreements. URL for my blog, if anyone is interested, is: http://blogforlovers.blogspot.com

Podles is an editor of "Touchstone" to which I have subscribed for years. But I do not like his articles usually and the constant critcisms he hurls (and I find it a bit wacko to lay part of the blame for the feminization of the Church on figures like St Bernard of Clairvaux, Hans Urs von Balthasar and, yes, Pope John Paul II!!!!).

See for yourself!

Marshall, some good points...we are not spiritual lemmings, that's for sure...

And oikonomia must be considered, as Gerard has pointed out, both for East and West. Oikonomia is not "copping out" by doing what is easiest but should facilitate metanoia and a progression towards theosis. I know of several Orthodox priests who do use it for a cop out and publicly preach and teach contraception using oikonomia as their gun against "Latin rigidism", as a blanket "dispensation" to contracept at will. I have heard pro-contraception plaforms from the OCA, the Greeks and the Antiochians.

I respect Archbishop Raya greatly but I would ask, "Who has greater stature with regard to the moral teaching of the Church within the Melkite Greek Catholic Church-- Archbishop Raya or the Pope?"

If it's not the Pope why are we Greek Catholic?

Frank

Dear Frank,

I take it some pressing business made Stuart cut short his response to you, what with all this talk of sex and conceiving . . .

But surely, Catholic Bishops' Conferences around the world have issued their own interpretations of Pope Paul VI's encyclical and while the argument can certainly be made that the Pope's teachings override them, there is not, nor ever has been, a consistent approach to this issue from all quarters of the Roman Catholic Church itself.

The Eastern Churches not only have their own Particular theological traditions pertaining to faith, but also to moral theology as well, based, as they are, on the teachings of the Fathers etc.

The Fathers of the Eastern Church, although trained in pre-Christian Greek philosophy, tended not to use it in developing their Christian theology.

The West is different in this respect and the "natural law" used in Humanae Vitae reflects this, as it is taken directly from the pre-Christian tradition.

Right away, this spells out a big difference in approach between East and West and this is what Kyr Joseph Raya has so eminently captured in his writings.

Finally, I return to my earlier comment that whatever traditional RC teachers and Popes have to say about artificial birth control is largely ignore by the majority of RC faithful.

It is simply not relevant to them at all. And no organization can go for long without having such a gap between stated objectives or teaching and the realities of actual practice of its members without some major change coming about.

So I really don't see what the deal is with trying to determine whether Byzantine Catholics follow Humanae Vitae when the majority of RC's never have.

The Orthodox Churches are more in tune with their faithful and have developed a teaching on this perspective which is, in my view, sensitive to the realities of contemporary life and to Patristic principles (minus the emphasis on the pagan notion of "natural law").

His Holiness the Pope has tended not to make this an overriding emphasis in his Pontificate, to his great credit.

Alex

Dear Stuart,

I am well rebuked, Mentor!

There is just no substitute for hard work! When I was told I had to "lie down" on the job, I thought I could just lie down . . .

And congratulations on your horizontal achievements!

Alex

To continue the discussion:

What changed that caused 1900 years of Christian tradition against artificial contraception to be suddenly acceptable?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Dave,

I found the previous discussion more fun . . .

You've researched the 1900 year tradition against artificial birth control, have you?

You mean the Romans were against condoms and diaphrams?

Well, I suppose when in Rome . . .

Did you also know that, at one point, the Catholic Church only considered a foetus "with a soul" after 40 days of its conception?

Change itself is not something the Church is against, unless it violates the integrity of the Teaching of Christ.

There is nothing preventing a future Pope from altering aspects of Humanae Vitae.

Is there?

Alex

Hi Jenny and Everybody:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I like the wording of your question!

Speaking for myself, I agree with the teaching - not just because I "have" to, and certainly not because I think it is an easy teaching, but because it is morally correct.

On a very basic level, I figure that the Church does me little good - sinner that I am - if it doesn't provide me with the necessary moral guidance to avoid the occasion of sin.

Annie

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Annie_SFO:

>>>On a very basic level, I figure that the Church does me little good - sinner that I am - if it doesn't provide me with the necessary moral guidance to avoid the occasion of sin.<<<

Nobody doubts that the Church has the right, indeed, the obligation to offer moral guidance. The real issue is how that moral guidance is given, and whether it is enforced through juridical methods. The Latin Church, with its emphasis on the Church as the perfect society, tends to view matters in a legalistic way, and attempts to enforce its moral decrees through a variety of juridical sanctions.

The Eastern Churches, on the other hand, try to avoid such legalism as incompatible with the concept of salvation through grace, and so make absolute rules in as few instances as possible. As the Eastern Churches tend to view salvation in terms of theosis, great emphasis is placed on growing in holiness, while at the same time recognizing the sinfulness of man and the uneven pace at which each person moves forward. Thus, with very few exceptions, the Eastern Churches try not to impose solutions on its members, but rather to hold up to them an ideal of Christian life to which they should aspire, realizing all the while that few if any can truly achieve the ideal. And that's fine, because the medicinal understanding of sin, and the therapeutic approach to repentence, do not impose the same notions of incurring a penalty that must be expiated, as is often found in Western models.

In both cases, that of the Eastern Church and the Western Church, the understanding of the purpose of sex and marriage is pretty much the same, but the way in which each Tradition attempts to live this model is somewhat different. And that is as it should be.

Correction to statements made earlier in this thread:

I received this today from the OCA Communications Office in response to an inquiry I had made. Some might feel this is "legalism" but I welcome this news (and it shows quite clearly that Orthodoxy can intrude into the bedroom just as much as Catholicism can!):


I asked a follow-up question and received this further comment:


I apologize for the misstatement I made earlier in this thread. I do still stand by my earlier comment re: the irony of the Pill being the catalyst for modern Orthodoxy's rejection of the traditional teaching on contraception.

I wonder how many Orthodox fully understand this stand of the OCA on this matter, however (or agree with it).

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-10-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Alex,

I understand that the Eastern Churches don�t make use of natural law in their moral theology. Personally, I think a natural law perspective can be useful in discerning the morality of and act, especially one not addressed by Scripture or the Fathers. However I think many people in the west including, the present Pope have seen that the natural law argument is inadequate to explain the immorality of contraception to the modern world. To this end Pope John Paul has rooted his explanation of the matter in a personalistic and Biblical argument. In the statement from Archbishop Raya quoted earlier in the thread he says, �The Byzantine ceremony of Crowning glorifies Christian chastity. Chastity means integrity of the human relation, integration of the forces of life into the personalistic aspects of nuptial love, which leads the couple into the Kingdom, into the peace and harmony of life.�

The present pope has reaffirmed the traditional teaching on contraception and his life�s work the �theology of the body� provides the framework for a new understanding of the traditional teaching. Rather than making a natural law argument against contraception, Pope John Paul says (along with Vatican II) that man only finds himself by making a sincere and total gift of himself. In this the model is Our Lord Jesus who emptied himself completely for the life of the world and we can only give ourselves in this way in union with Him. This call to self-emptying love pertains to every aspect of our lives and has a particular meaning in the context of the nuptial love of spouses. In the nuptial relationship man and woman are called to give themselves completely to each other in love, holding nothing back. Specifically in the act of sexual intercourse, the distinctive act of union and self giving in married life, they are called to be an icon of the Trinitarian love which pours itself out without reservation (Father Lev Gillet�s God of limitless love comes to mind). The gift the spouses make to each other includes the will to give every aspect of their being, including their fertility, to each other. In this way they find themselves and find God in their married love. The gift of fertility is so integral to this self-giving that for the couple to withhold it from each other makes the gift incomplete. It makes their nuptial act of love one which is not a total gift of self, not �love without limit� but love which reserves part of itself, love which does impose limits rather than giving its self completely. The couple�s act of love becomes in a sense inauthentic and they remain in a real sense �alone� as Adam was before he was given a spouse. Contraception is wrong because �It is not good for the man to be alone,� and spouses cannot help but be alone when in that special act of union they refuse to give themselves completely to each other in love. Contraception violates the �nuptial meaning of the body� which is total self gift.

It is not immoral for spouses, for just reason, to space the birth of children as long as they don�t violate this nuptial meaning of the body. Therefore they may use natural family planning, which accomplishes the same end as contraception (avoidance of pregnancy) but uses moral means. Whereas a couple who contracept withhold the gift of fertility from each other, the spouses who use NFP and who have intercourse during the woman�s infertile time hold nothing back themselves. God withholds the gift of fertility (as is His prerogative) while the spouses withhold nothing. When they abstain from intercourse during the woman�s fertile time, rather than refuse to honor the act of total self-giving which intercourse is they choose not to express their love in the particular act of sexual intercourse at that time, as is their prerogative.

For information on Pope John Paul�s Theology of the Body you can check out

http://www.theologyofthebody.net/articles.htm


BTW the techniques used in NFP can also be used to help couples that have difficulty conceiving. You can do a search for NFP on the web.

Frank

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frank:
[QB]

>>>In this way they find themselves and find God in their married love. The gift of fertility is so integral to this self-giving that for the couple to withhold it from each other makes the gift incomplete.<<<

An interesting perspective that begs some questions:

1. Can people who are naturally infertile enter into a "valid" marriage under this theology; e.g., if the man has lost his testicles, or if the woman has had an hysterectomy?

2. Can a woman past the age of menopause enter into a "valid" marriage, since she is not fertile?

3. Is the validity of marriage therefore inextricably linked to fertility and procreation? or is marriage principally a sacrament of union in which the bearing of children is a fruit of the union, not its primary, or secondary rationale?

Again, look to the words of Kyr Joseph on this matter, and compare them. Apparently in this East and West have some very different perspectives.

Stuart,

You quoted:


>>>In this way they find themselves and find God in their married love. The gift of fertility is so integral to this self-giving that for the couple to withhold it from each other makes the gift incomplete.<<<

with an emphasis on the word couple. An equally important word to highlight is withhold.

With this in mind, the answers to your hypothetical questions 1 and 2 are "Yes" since neither party is guilty of withholding anything.

In Christ,
Steven

Dear Steven,

My Godson's mother is, I believe, in sync with you.

She recently told me that the way she gets her husband Ian to behave is by "Witholding" sex.

Alex

Steven is correct. Spouses are called to give themselves completely to each other. They are asked to withhold nothing. The average married couple is fertile and so they are called to include their fertility in the gift of themselves. If a couple is infertile (because of menopause, injury to their reproductive organs etc.) they are still called to give themselves completely and withhold nothing. They have no fertility to give because of their circumstances so they are not withholding anything. The key concept is that the spouses make a total gift of self and withhold nothing from each other. If they happen to be infertile they can�t withhold their fertility; it�s just something that isn�t there.

Frank

Hello Forum members. I'm a new member and wanted to chime in on this topic.

I don't agree with Alex's interpretation of the situation as a bunch of celibates trying to force the laos faithful to observe something which they don't believe (i.e. that contraception is immoral). If you go by this, it has also been found that the majority of Catholics in this country don't believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, either. Perhaps we should throw this belief out the window along with the rejection of contraception?

In reality, many faithful (like myself) oppose the use of contraception. They do this because they believe this to be the truth, not because they were forced to believe it. They see the Church leaders who uphold this teaching as heroic defenders of Christian morality, in the face of the moral collapse of so many others. These leaders echo the teachings of the Fathers to reject the pagan indulgence of "Onanism" as well as the many other sexual immoralities that are in vogue today. And no matter how hard you all try, you can't make this a matter of "legalism." I'm sorry, but upholding an ancient moral belief doesn't qualify as "legalism." This is, rather, courage in the face of weakness. Courage to uphold Christian morality.

All this talk about the difference between East and West when it comes to Christian morality, I believe for the most part is hogwash. IMO this idea is the fabrication of modern Orthodox writers trying to justify their moral weakness on controversial issues. If you look at the teachings of many Eastern Fathers, Patriarchs, and Church leaders you will see identical condemnations of many moral perversions the West condemns, INCLUDING CONTRACEPTION. Not only this, the application of Natural Law is by no means an exclusively "Western" or "Latin" concept or tradition. The East has traditionally employed it too.

For myself, it is primarily clear Patristic evidence (Eastern and Western) which compelled me to reject the contraceptive act. It remains to be seen how Orthodox and Catholic Christians who accept Contraception can so easily brush aside such a strong and clear Patristical witness.

Based on this, I put together the treatise mentioned above by "Dave Ignatius." Its there for anyone who might be interested in taking a second look at this topic. I believe it represents the authentic Eastern Tradition.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

"I apologize for the misstatement I made earlier in this thread."

Thank you. Honestly, I don't understand how you read that statement from the AAC to support use of the so-called "pill", as I have *never* heard that from the lips of an Orthodox priest.

"I wonder how many Orthodox fully understand this stand of the OCA on this matter, however (or agree with it)."

All Orthodox that I have discussed it with understand that the pill is forbidden, as are other devices (like IUDs) that can interfere with a fertilized egg.

The GOA's leading moral theologian, Prof. Fr. Stanley Harakas, has written more or less the same thing as the OCA synodal statement in his book "450 Questions and Answers About Orthodoxy", so it's not strictly the "OCA's view", although the OCA did take the effort to address this important matter at the level of a local church council.

Brendan

I've seen it suggested in this forum that because we are eastern we don't have to subject ourselves to the legalism of the west.
Ok, i'll accept that, sort of...

But what i will place myself under is the glory of what the eastern Church does proclaim, and it all goes back to the icon of the Trinity. Between the Father and the Son, or the Holy Spirit, is there a giant rubber wall? Because our theology of the Trinity and the Love, the movement of God within One, but in three persons: the two became one, and then there were three. God is Creator and He is Lover, and it's a great injustice when we say "sorry God, we'll let you Create when we're ready according to our own judgement". Ok, think about sex with God's help, and sex when God's not allowed to participate...

The divorce rate among non-religious people is about 50% here in the US, the same as the major Christian population (this being protestants and Catholics who use contraception). The divorce rate among couples using natural family planning is somewhere around 1%. When a family (meaning atleast a husband a wife, because they are already a family) is flooded with the grace and participation of Christ through the sacraments, every unadultered encounter between the husband and wife is a blessing to the other, bringing both closer to become the saints that we're all called to be. Once a family embraces the sin of contraception, they shut themselves off from the very grace which is their lifeblood and sustenance, and their marriage can no longer be led by Christ because He has been kicked out of the story. Just as every encounter with the Eucharist can bring a curse or blessing, depending on the state of our soul (1Cor11), so the nuptual act may bless or curse the other. If both partners are bringing sin into the act, I'm assuming that a blessing is not what they'll receive.

Besides that, I personally know women who's lives have been shattered by the medical ramifications of using contraception (through stroke, cancer, severe illness, emotional grief, infertility, and the damage left from silent abortions with breakthrough pregnancies while on the pill). The cost of natural family planning may be a book and a basil thermometer. The profits made from keeping a woman on the pill for the rest of her life, and then the medical procedures to repair damage done by the pill itself are so high that the woman loses all value to the marketers except for her ability to make them money.

And what husband wouldn't want to know that every time his wife looked into his eyes, she desired to bear fruit for him, just as the Church's desire should be to bear fruit for our Lord. My close friends have been married for three years and have been blessed with three children, one on the way. The husband works labor, but all of the children are still provided for. Their family truly contains the Love of Christ.

God doesn't say to "multiply and be fruitful" once you make six figures, or when you have the time, or when you feel emotionally ready. God says "multiply and be fruitful". He's big enough to take care of the rest.

"The divorce rate among non-religious people is about 50% here in the US, the same as the major Christian population (this being protestants and Catholics who use contraception"

I think it's actually slightly *higher* for Roman Catholics as a whole when compared with the rest of the population. Interestingly, Eastern Orthodox Christians have a significantly lower divorce rate than Roman Catholics in the United States.

"Once a family embraces the sin of contraception, they shut themselves off from the very grace which is their lifeblood and sustenance, and their marriage can no longer be led by Christ because He has been kicked out of the story."

I don't quite understand how this is not the case where the couple deliberately chooses to restrict intercourse to the non-fertile period, following so-called natural family-planning. As I understand it, the likelihood of conceiving during that period is similar to the likelihood of conceiving when using a condom during the fertile period (which also has a "failure" rate of a few percent). Percentage-wise, we're looking at similar failure rates (or perhaps an even lower failure rate for NFP during the non-fertile period, as is sometimes claimed by the most ardent supporters of NFP), so I really don't understand how the decision to restrict intercourse to the unfertile period using NFP is any more inviting to Christ, or open to the act of creation offered by God, than using a condom is .. after all, it seems like you are *more* likely to conceive using a condom than you are using NFP during the non-fertile period, so it seems like if you are using NFP to restrict intercourse to that period you're making a decision that is even more set *against* conception, in terms of the likelihood of avoiding it.


"Besides that, I personally know women who's lives have been shattered by the medical ramifications of using contraception (through stroke, cancer, severe illness, emotional grief, infertility, and the damage left from silent abortions with breakthrough pregnancies while on the pill)."

But why jump to the pill when we've just determined that the Orthodox don't support that? I agree that the pill is morally objectionable, in addition to being medically problematic. But so what? We're discussing other, non-abortificient, forms of regulating conception.

"God doesn't say to "multiply and be fruitful" once you make six figures, or when you have the time, or when you feel emotionally ready. God says "multiply and be fruitful". He's big enough to take care of the rest."

Of course, aside from noticing the apparent contempt hidden behind this statement for folks who come from various socio-economic backgrounds and who may wish to at least try to balance a career and a family, I also have anecdotes of folks who use the so-called "natural" family planning method for regulating conception.

One is a family living in Steubenville Ohio, real RC rah-rahs from FUS. Well, they've had 5 kids in 7 years and there is no end in sight, and they are living in virtual poverty. The husband? Sure, he works, but doesn't bring in enough money really to provide well for his family, or to enable them to better themselves at all in this world. But, hey, that's God's will right? As long as we keep pumping out the kids, we don't need to worry about the rest, because we've done our duty.

And then there's the well-known case of the RC family here in Manassas, Va. that recently suffered the tragic death of a young baby from being left in a minivan in the hot Virginia sun. Of course, the family had 13 kids, and the child was simply forgotten in the van (apparently this has happened before .. various children have been "forgotten" during shopping trips and the like). Well, in this case it led to a tragic death. The wife: We considered using NFP but my husband and I believe that using NFP to contracept is immoral. The elder brother: A tragic death, but at least she was baptized so we know she's in heaven (as if her lack of baptism would condemn her to hell or limbo). The D.A.: we're prosecuting for criminally negligent homicide. Good for them, he deserves it. But the real crime is the absolute irresponsibility associated with having 13 kids when one is not capable of caring for them -- materially or in a more basic sense of watching them and making sure they don't get lost or hurt (or killed). And then wrapping that personal irresponsibility in some religious righteousness, as if it was God's will for this couple to have more kids than they are capable of caring for -- thereby conveniently mitigating the guilt associated with the irresponsibility to begin with.

Fact is this: it is God's will for a married couple to have children, and the number and spacing of children must be consistent with the family's ability to care for the children -- materially, emotionally, intellectually and, well, basically. How that is achieved is up to the couple to figure out, based on their own circumstances in life, other responsibilities, financial and emotional profile and the like -- that is, in itself, the quest for holiness in one's own life, in one's own circumstances. Holiness is not a one-size-fits-all thing ... it is a thing that must be worked out among the diverse circumstances in which we all live. If a couple can raise 5 kids responsibly and well, then that is well and good, but if a couple can only raise 2 or 3 kids responsibly and well, then that is what they should do .. and ultimately only the couple can decide how to proceed in this area, and how to achieve that.

One reason perhaps for the lower divorce rate amongst those who practice NFP is that unlike contraceptives, NFP requires constant ongoing communication, and potentially periodic self-sacrifice from both parties.


Spacing babies isn't the only measure of success.

Sharon

Natural family planning is the way to go. Kudos to all you people out there who practice it. For it is in understanding our call to moderation and self-denial at times that allows us to give so completely at others. From a psychological perspective, NFP is most conducive to a healthy marital relationship because as stated before, it forces communication, it forces respect for the natural cycles of the body, and it is conducive to our spirit of fasting. Sex on demand cheapens the act and makes it more easily a self-gratifying event rather than the mutual self-giving and the notion of mutual martyrdom that is effected in a christian marriage. So much more can be said, but so much has already been posted. The spiritual and psychological are interconnected and when both aspects are respected and their needs met, we grow very close to the christian ideal, I believe.

Athanasius

I would like to agree with the last two posts in that using nfp increases self control and communication within a family. Also, because it may seem that financial and emotional situations are impossible to overcome, a family that uses nfp (most especially during trying times) is proclaiming their faith in a God who can overcome what the world sees as a complete crisis.

It seemed impractical for the widow to spend the last of her food to feed Elijah when one could have argued that she should have been responsible in trying to take care of herself and her son. Instead, with faith this "irresonponsible" woman fed Elijah, and she was supplied with more than enough food to bring her and her son through the famine.

Originally posted by Brendan:

"I think it's actually slightly *higher* for Roman Catholics as a whole when compared with the rest of the population. Interestingly, Eastern Orthodox Christians have a significantly lower divorce rate than Roman Catholics in the United States."

reply:
Yes, but the problem that she was pointing to was that couples using NFP have bedrock solid marriages. These Roman Catholics you point to are not using NFP. There is much evidence to substantiate this. BTW, what is the Orthodox divorce rate in the U.S. (just curious)? Again the divorce rate for Catholics using NFP is under 2%.

Brendan said:
"I don't quite understand how this is not the case where the couple deliberately chooses to restrict intercourse to the non-fertile period, following so-called natural family-planning. As I understand it, the likelihood of conceiving during that period is similar to the likelihood of conceiving when using a condom during the fertile period (which also has a "failure" rate of a few percent). Percentage-wise, we're looking at similar failure rates (or perhaps an even lower failure rate for NFP during the non-fertile period, as is sometimes claimed by the most ardent supporters of NFP), so I really don't understand how the decision to restrict intercourse to the unfertile period using NFP is any more inviting to Christ, or open to the act of creation offered by God, than using a condom is .. after all, it seems like you are *more* likely to conceive using a condom than you are using NFP during the non-fertile period, so it seems like if you are using NFP to restrict intercourse to that period you're making a decision that is even more set *against* conception, in terms of the likelihood of avoiding it."

reply:
Looking at this based on percentages is a western legalistic approach (I'm sorry, I've always wanted to say that to someone, they're always hitting me with that line... that felt good, no wonder they use it

No, seriously I don't think the percentages tell the real story. Ignoring the means to justify the same end, I don't think is a correct approach. Its like comparing a couple living together outside of marriage with a couple who do the right thing and get married first. Both may seek the exact same ends, life-long companionship, children, etc. Yet one is morally unacceptable and the other acceptable. Why? Because our faith teaches us this. Because the Church holds this truth to be a moral teaching revealed by God. Many would accuse us of being idiots for insisting on such moralistic principals, but even studies show that one of these practices is much more conducive to an ordered society.

Contraception has done much to disorder society. If interested in a few examples, you can look at "Contraceptive Mentality," which is chapter four of a paper I wrote called "The Two Voices in the Catholic Church on Contraception" Although the paper was written as a Roman Catholic approach to the issue of contraception, it still has some tid bits others might appreciate.

Here's the Link: http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Articles1.html

Yet I have to say that I think those who say NFP is still being "open to life," insinuating that those who use it are playing a kind of "Vatican Roulette" are not correct. We must be careful how we speak on this. Even if NFP were 100% effective in preventing birth, it would STILL be morally acceptable as opposed to A.B.C. Its moral legitamacy does not derive from its inability to be perfectly effective. Rather it is legitimate because those who use it do not defile the human sexual act as God intended it. As St. Paul once put, "the marriage bed is kept undefiled."

As I wrote in "Is Contraception Orthodox" (same link), "Yet, some might argue that there is no moral difference between Natural Family Planning and artificial birth control. This is untrue. The profound difference is this: with artificial birth control -directly disobeying the clear teaching of Scripture and Tradition- a couple deliberately impedes, frustrates and disables the life-giving potency of their marital act, rendering it sterile. A potential human being who might be on a direct trajectory to being conceived is deliberately prevented from being. But with Natural Family Planning the couple are not at all obstructing the conception of a new life in their marital act. Instead, they are timing their undefiled marital act (cf. Hebrews 13:4) during the season God has designed the wife to be infertile: when no new life can result. Therefore, just as there is a proper way for a man and a woman to engage in sexual relations, that is, only in the marital covenant, so too is there a proper way to limit the number of children in a family, that is, by natural means. And, just as there are proper intentions for marriage, that is for love, companionship and children, so too is there a proper reason for using NFP, only if additional children would bring great difficulty to the family.

Regarding the couples you mentioned who have so many children that they do not know how to take care of them all, I can see your point that this can be a problem. Of course accidents like the one you described happens to couples with one child too (I know of such a case near my home). So we can't necessarilly blame this accident on the number of their children. That might be the anti-life media's hype influencing the reporting.

In addition to this, say that didn't happen to that little boy and in fact he lived. Do you think he would've wished his parents had used contraception so that he wouldn't have had a chance to live, love and know God his creator?

Couples in the situation you described may or may not have been reckless with the gift of fertility that God has given them. This was their personal choice and God will judge. Church teaching does not mandate that we be reckless, just generous, self-less and moral. This is an area of Christian discipleship in Holy Matrimony that needs to be proclaimed more inorder to produce better education for those who are serious about following the Catholic Church's call to reject A.B.C.

Ofcourse on the other hand there is nothing wrong with married couples wanting to go beyond the call of duty and status quo to live heroic lives of sacrifice for their children. Part of this heroic sacrifice could be allowing a great amount of children into this world in order that they may know their loving Creator. Of course it does not appear heroic if these children are neglected. Usually this is not the case. In truth, this is a way for the married to imitate the life of sacrifcie of the monastics in our own unique way. It is a far cry from the call of America to have one boy and one girl and a nice house and a couple of nice cars and the finest universities lined up when the kids graduate from high school.

just my understanding of the topic,

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

Brendan wrote:


Sorry, Brendan, I hadn't noticed this earlier.

How long has it been the OCA policy to not permit use of the Pill?

Was it not the advent of the Pill which contributed to the evolution of thought among Orthodox on contraception?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

"How long has it been the OCA policy to not permit use of the Pill?"

Don't know, but I expect that the conciliar statement was intended to codify and clarify what had been an existing practice pastorally.

"Was it not the advent of the Pill which contributed to the evolution of thought among Orthodox on contraception?"

No, actually I don't think so. I think that the advent of life in the 20th century has resulted in an increased pastoral awareness, perhaps, of certain aspects of this question, but this is a multifaceted phenomenon, including massive changes in socioeconomic relationships, living conditions, mobility and resulting family and extended family structures and the like. Pinning it to one specific issue to the exclusion of the others is too narrow a reading of recent history, in my opinion. Of course, the church prior to the 20th century and the advent of new contraceptive technologies never, of necessity, had a well-developed position on these new non-abortificient means of preventing conceptions from occurring (although forms of "birth control" that amounted to preventing the birth of a human being once conceived have been roundly condemned by the church since time immemorial). The pastoral response of the church to these new realities was needed, with the issue of where to draw the moral line with respect to these newly available technologies. The Roman Catholic Church realized this as well, of course, but reached a different conclusion, as is well known by this point.

Brendan

"Its like comparing a couple living together outside of marriage with a couple who do the right thing and get married first."

Of course, this is an inapposite comparison. The issue here is not marriage or not, but what -- within the context of marriage and against the background of the moral impermissibility of taking a life, however recently conceived -- a couple can do to regulate pregnancies. It is not at all like the decision to engage in sex outside of marriage.

"Rather it is legitimate because those who use it do not defile the human sexual act as God intended it."

This comes remarkably close to so-called Christian Scientism, in my opinion. In effect, the same argument is raised by the Christian scientists with respect to medical care, pharmaceuticals and the like -- ie, they are not the intent of God because they are not "naturally" present, they must be interjected by us into the situation and therefore are not in accord with the Divine will. That's Christian Scientism, as far as I understand it. The marital bed is no more undefiled by a condom than is the arm of a child defiled by an IV when she needs it to recover from an illness.

"A potential human being who might be on a direct trajectory to being conceived is deliberately prevented from being. But with Natural Family Planning the couple are not at all obstructing the conception of a new life in their marital act. Instead, they are timing their undefiled marital act (cf. Hebrews 13:4) during the season God has designed the wife to be infertile: when no new life can result."

Ah, but this reading ignores the fact that the major contraceptive decision relating to NFP is precisely one of timing. In other words, the decision to refrain from sex during the fertile period and engage in sex during the infertile period is in itself an active, willfull, deliberate, and very pre-meditated decision to contracept. It's possible, for example, that the same potential life was intended to be conceived in month X, but the couple, by deliberately and willfully restricting their sexual union to the non-fertile part of that cycle, has utterly thwarted that potential life from coming into being. NFP does this in the same way that a condom does -- ie, by preventing the egg from being fertilized. NFP simply differs in that the "prevention" comes from the premeditated decision of the couple to withhold that sperm, to deny that sperm to the egg that could be a potential life waiting to happen in the eyes of God, and thereby thwarting its future development. In short, the decision to delay intercourse -- which is the essence of the NFP contraceptive approach -- could very well be choking the very lifeblood of a potential human being. The critical point is that decision to delay intercourse, or to restrict it to certain times of the month, is a fundamentally contraceptive act, and an act which every bit as much thwarts the coming into existence of a potential life.

Brendan,

How old were you in the 60's? The advent of the "pill" revolutionized how society viewed sexuality and contraception. (Perhaps I'm revealing how old I really am! ) The evolution of Orthodox thought on contraception dates from this period. Until this time, as Bishop Kallistos noted in his first edition of The Orthodox Church artificial means of birth control were considered unacceptable. We must also remember that it was not generally known in the 60's and 70's that one way the "pill" works is to sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb. Fr John Meyendorff shows the attitude of the times:

However, both the New Testament and Church tradition consider continence as an acceptable form of family planning. Recent Roman Catholic teaching also recommends periodic continence, but forbids the "artificial" means, such as the "pill." But is there a real difference between the means called "artificial" and those called "natural"? Is continence really "natural"? Is not any medical control of human functions "artificial"? Should it, therefore, be condemned as sinful? And finally, a serious theological question: is anything "natural" necessarily "good"? For even St. Paul saw that continence can lead to "burning." Is not science able to render childbirth more humane, by controlling it, just as it controls food, habitat and health?

Straight condemnation of birth-control fails to give satisfactory answers to all these questions. It has never been endorsed by the Orthodox Church as a whole, even if, at times, local Church authorities may have issued statements on the matter identical to that of the Pope. In any case, it has never been the Church's practice to give moral guidance by issuing standard formulas claiming universal validity on questions which actually require a personal act of conscience. There are forms of birth control which will be acceptable, and even unavoidable, for certain couples, while others will prefer avoiding them. This is particularly true of the "pill."

The question of birth control and of its acceptable forms can only be solved by individual Christian couples.... (From Marriage--An Orthodox Perspective, p. 62, first published in 1971. This quote is from the revised edition of 1984.)

In this era usage of the "pill" was viewed as a issue of `preference'...a decision left to the conscience of the couple. What is remarkable is that Fr Meyendorff's presentation was written less than a decade after the first edition of The Orthodox Church...a very tumultuous decade for society and the Church.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Brendan (or others),

Are there any published statements by the OCA or other Orthodox Churches specifically stating that using the "pill" is not permissable? I'm just trying to trace the history of this as to when it became unacceptable in Orthodox practice.

Thanks,

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave --

The only written statement that approaches anything "official" is the one from the AAC with which you are familiar -- I have never seen or heard anyone interpret that in a manner that permitted use of the so-called "pill".

Brendan

That makes sense. I had not caught the significance of the wording earlier and I stand corrected. (It would have been better if that document had not used "foetus" since that technically is not used to describe an unimplanted embryo.) Many people are unaware that the "pill" can cause a fertilized egg not to implant, however, and for them a stronger statement might be needed.

So, can we place the first official statements against the "pill" then in 1992? And that, until then, some Orthodox (as for example, Fr Meyendorff cited above) would leave that to the "personal conscience" of a married couple?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Well, I think we can place the first official statement of any kind relating to any of this to that date. Prior to that, there had been no official Orthodox statement relating to these methods of regulating pregnancy by any jurisdiction -- there had been the writings of Fr. Meyendorff, Paul Evdokimov. Fr. Stanley Harakas, and others, but not "official statements" one way or the other relating to these specific forms of regulating pregnancy. To date, I believe that OCA is the only jurisdiction that has published something dealing with this specific issue (Fr. Harakas' book is normative for Greek Orthodox in its own way, but not in the way that a synodal or concilliar statement would be) ... although I haven't reviewed the ROC's "Social Concept" recently and there could be something in there that deals with this issue briefly.

Brendan wrote:


I don't buy the analogy to Christian Scientist teaching, here.

No matter what we may think as to how scientific the understanding was the traditional interpretation of Onan's sin is very much similar to condom use (though a condom is, of course, much more effective). The modern understanding of the case of Onan is to disassociate it from any connection with birth control--for obvious reasons.

For a discussion on the application of the case of Onan to the question of birth control, see:

http://www.hli.org/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/001/461lorsr.asp

particularly this reference to the traditional Jewish understanding:

Jewish commentators, not to mention plain common sense as defined by most dictionaries, have thus never ceased to understand the sin of Onan to consist of coitus interruptus and, by extension, masturbation. The Encyclopedia Judaica sums up the traditional teaching regarding Genesis 38, concluding that &#8220;the Talmud sternly inveighs against "bringing forth seed in vain.' For this reason, condoms and some uterine devices are not permitted under Jewish law.

Curiously, a footnote mentions that Orthodox Judaism does permit the "pill."

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

"the traditional interpretation of Onan's sin is very much similar to condom use (though a condom is, of course, much more effective)."

And by extension this applies equally forcefully to the use of NFP for contraceptive reasons. In the latter case, it is the decision to concentrate sexual activity during the infertile time of the month that "brings forth the seed in vain", for if one is, per NFP-science, virtually certain that fertilization will not occur during that period, and this is the reason why one is "bringing forth one's seed" during that period, one is equally well bringing forth one's seed in vain, and with all due deliberation and premeditation.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

I would reply that when one uses Natural Family Planning for justifiable reasons and not trivial ones (as decided by the couple with their spiritual father's direction)they are in fact placing the seed exactly as GOD has designed them to place it only at a time when GOD has designed the woman not to be fruitful. Thus absolutely no distortion of nature or sin takes place. On the contrary, when one uses contraception again, directly disobeying the teaching of Scripture and Tradition a couple obstructs, sterilizes and frustrates GOD's design. Most importantly, with contraception, a potential human life who might be on a direct trajectory to being conceived is deliberately prevented from being.

But with Natural Family Planning the couple are not at all obstructing the conception of a new life, in a given marital act. Instead, they are timing their undefiled marital act (cf. Hebrews 13:4) during the season GOD HAS DESIGNED the wife to be infertile: WHEN NO NEW LIFE CAN RESULT.

But I would encourage those who think that NFP is just as sinful and unacceptable as contraception to follow their consciences and reject both. The Church and the Fathers certainly teach nothing against those who refuse to use NFP and contraception. I encourage you to use your fertility for God and allow many new lives into this world, to know and to love Him. He will certainly reward your generousity.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

"Is Contraception Orthodox?

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

[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

"I would reply that when one uses Natural Family Planning for justifiable reasons and not trivial ones (as decided by the couple with their spiritual father's direction)they are in fact placing the seed exactly as GOD has designed them to place it only at a time when GOD has designed the woman not to be fruitful."

Ah, but the issue remains as to the decision to time one's sexual activity to the infertile period of the month. One can never know whether God intended one to provide the sperm to the unfertilized egg in a given month -- one can pray about it and ask one's priest about it, but one can never know, really, if one is blocking an intended life from reaching its fruition. And so the decision to withhold the means of life from that potential incipient life is, in itself, contraceptive. You may say that if you do it for a licit reason (and in this regard its important to remember that Orthodoxy would also limit the reasons one can morally use a non-abortificient contraceptive), it is an acceptable contraceptive decision, but it is contraceptive nonetheless.

"Instead, they are timing their undefiled marital act (cf. Hebrews 13:4) during the season GOD HAS DESIGNED the wife to be infertile: WHEN NO NEW LIFE CAN RESULT."

And as a result that decision is 100% inherently contraceptive -- ie, one is delaying intercourse specifically to avoid a pregnancy. The flip-side of that timing decision is that the potential life that could have been conceived earlier in the month is starved of the means by which it might come to fruition -- and that is definitely a contraceptive action (ie, deciding to refrain during that period and actually refraining during that period).

"But I would encourage those who think that NFP is just as sinful and unacceptable as contraception to follow their consciences and reject both."

I think that this is the only place that a rigorous adherence to the logic behind NFP can lead -- everything else is "contraceptive in mentality" and action, and if one takes the view (as is often expressed with respect to NFP) that any act that is contraceptive in intention is immoral, NFP is on the same moral footing as any other non-abortificient means of preventing an egg from being fertilized.

Brendan

Brendan (and others),

A couple of points concerning the NFP discussion:

1. If God had intended that every act of intercourse result in a pregnancy, he would not have designed the woman with non-fruitful periods during her cycle. From this I gather that sex without pregnancy is fine according to the Divine plan.

2. Christians who practice NFP are also informed by their relgious traditions (or surely should be!). Part of that tradition is to be fruitful and multiply; another part of that tradition is to be a good trustee for your children (which does suggest some limits on the number of children). There's a tension in these two contrasting threads of tradition, but we must weigh them in the balance at any given time. Those NFP zealots who say that "every contraceptive act is immoral" are being one-sided in their application of tradition.

3. NFP is only one aspect of "natural" fecundity. Another important piece is breastfeeding. Breastfeeding mothers often do not ovulate for many months after delivery -- another of God's wonderful ways to balance the above tensions. Would you suggest that couples who have sex during these months of non-ovulation are practicing a contraceptive mentality?

In Christ,
Steven

Originally posted by StevenH

"1. If God had intended that every act of intercourse result in a pregnancy, he would not have designed the woman with non-fruitful periods during her cycle. From this I gather that sex without pregnancy is fine according to the Divine plan."

reply:
I totally agree with your reasoning as long as you are not using it to justify contraception. The infertile periods are there for us to use if there is a serious reason to postpone a pregnancy. Thus there is no need to circumvent God's design, nor to distort it. He has provided us a way -in our very design- to limit births without distorting nature.

"2. Christians who practice NFP are also informed by their relgious traditions (or surely should be!). Part of that tradition is to be fruitful and multiply; another part of that tradition is to be a good trustee for your children (which does suggest some limits on the number of children). There's a tension in these two contrasting threads of tradition, but we must weigh them in the balance at any given time."

reply:
I agree with your observation of the tension between being open to life and being able to provide what's *needed* for one's children. I don't think there is a cookie-cut answer for this question either. Rather, each couple must constantly seek the Lord to ensure they are neither being selfish nor reckless with their gift of fertility. But they must always use sex in accord with authentic Christian morality.

"Those NFP zealots who say that 'every contraceptive act is immoral' are being one-sided in their application of tradition."

reply:
I'm not sure if I am understanding you correctly but if you are saying a contraceptive act is moral, I certainly have to disagree with you. I would like to know what part of Church Tradition, which Father or Scripture text you are looking to to justify the contraceptive act?

Certainly the Popes of Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, the Second Vatican Council and the entire Church tradition of East and West has always opposed the contraceptive act as a distortion of the gift of human sexuality.

I think it is o.k. to be one-sided when it is the truth you are being one-sided about. For all I have seen, the Church's Tradition on contraception is one sided, decidedly against contraception. Do know of information which contradicts this?

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Brendan,

I just realized you have replied to me twice and I missed both of them. I apologize for not attempting a response to your questions sooner. Here it goes:

I said:
"A potential human being who might be on a direct trajectory to being conceived is deliberately prevented from being. But with Natural Family Planning the couple are not at all obstructing the conception of a new life in their marital act. Instead, they are timing their undefiled marital act (cf. Hebrews 13:4) during the season God has designed the wife to be infertile: when no new life can result."

you said:
"It's possible, for example, that the same potential life was intended to be conceived in month X, but the couple, by deliberately and willfully restricting their sexual union to the non-fertile part of that cycle, has utterly thwarted that potential life from coming into being. NFP does this in the same way that a condom does -- ie, by preventing the egg from being fertilized. NFP simply differs in that the "prevention" comes from the premeditated decision of the couple to withhold that sperm, to deny that sperm to the egg that could be a potential life waiting to happen in the eyes of God, and thereby thwarting its future development. In short, the decision to delay intercourse -- which is the essence of the NFP contraceptive approach -- could very well be choking the very lifeblood of a potential human being. The critical point is that decision to delay intercourse, or to restrict it to certain times of the month, is a fundamentally contraceptive act, and an act which every bit as much thwarts the coming into existence of a potential life."

reply:
This is creative but, if you think about it, doesn't necessarily follow. Actually this child you mention is not on direct trajectory to being conceived but rather an indirect one . The point remains that the couple using NFP are using sex as it has been designed. The couple using artificial contraception are not. In essence, in the former case, God is the one by His very own design who prevents the possibility of conception. In the latter case, it is the couple who deliberately destroys the life giving aspect of their marital act and thereby violate God's design.

To carry your logic further, we could say that the same couple would also be sinful if they refrained from sex all together. Then we could take it even one step further by saying that if two individuals decided not to marry they also could be sinning by not allowing themselves to have offspring together. Or perhaps they married the wrong spouse and thereby had the wrong offspring???

I'm not going to pursue this reasoning because I think it takes us away from what I believe is the real crux of the issue: that artificial birth control is a distortion of human sexuality as designed by our Creator as I'll try to explain further on down.

you said:
I think that this is the only place that a rigorous adherence to the logic behind NFP can lead -- everything else is "contraceptive in mentality" and action, and if one takes the view (as is often expressed with respect to NFP) that any act that is contraceptive in intention is immoral, NFP is on the same moral footing as any other non-abortificient means of preventing an egg from being fertilized.

reply:
Not true. Artificial Contraceptors distort the very act, NFP'ers allow God's own design to prevail. I heard one theologian use a very extreme example to demonstrate the difference of the two acts. He said it is like someone receiving Holy Communion and then spitting it out. This is the contraceptor. They are engaging in a holy act and distorting it. The couple using NFP for valid reasons, is analagous to simply abstaining from receiving holy Communion. One takes something holy and disfigures it. The other doesn't engage in it until they are in the proper state to do so.

As St. Clement once remarked, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children).

And as the philosopher Lactantius said, those who "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power... or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife... the genital [generating] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (Divine Institutions 6.23.18).

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Dear Friends,

Reading through this thread again has made me think I should add a couple of things. An excellent discussion of the arguments for NFP over Artificial Birth Control is the 3 tape set called "Life Giving Love" by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.

In it Scott Hahn gives strong arguments that the condemnation of A.B.C. is an infallible teaching of the Church. He shows the Jesuits in this coutry, prior to Vatican II and prior to Humane Vitae had a month long conference of all the leading moral theologians and came to this same conclusion that this was an infallible teaching. And Pope John Paul II himself has said that this is not an issue open to debate among Catholic theologians. Its infallibe not because the teaching was made by the Pope "ex cathedra" but rather because the condemnation of contraception is part of the continuous "ordinary majesterium" which is recognized as just as infallible as Papal "ex cathedra" statements.

The "majority report" was written and used as a tool to pressure Pope Paul VI into changing the Church's teaching. Since then there have been many theologians who have publicly repented of their initial dissent against the teaching of Humae Vitae. Here's the public confession of one RC theologian, William May (sp?) in September 1988, which he published in the "Fellowship of Catholic Scholars" newsletter:

"When I signed it (the letter of dissent against Humae Vitae) I did not believe that I could personally practice contraception. Nor would my wife who is truly courageus and who's intelligence is enlightened by a deep faith, would ever have allowed it. I was intellectually confused and I had been impressed by one line of argument in the majority report. But there was another baser reason why I signed this statement. Many of its signers had outstanding reputations as thinkers and scholars and I wanted to be counted among the elite, the illuminatee, the bold, the courageous, advanced thinkers in Roman Catholicism. I believe that I began to repent of my act almost immediately. Deep down I knew there was something wrong with contraception and I realized that my decision to sign this statement was, in part at least, motivated by base, vain-glorious considerations. In 1971, I began to teach Christian ethics and this forced me to study, and study carefully the nature of the moral argument. I began to see ever more clearly the sophistry of the majority report. I began to realize that the moral theory invented to justify contraception could be used to justify any kind of deed because it was consequentialistic and utilitarian and rejected the very notion of intrinsically evil acts. I began to realize how truly courageous and prophetic Pope Paul VI had been and how providential it was that he had been given the strength to resist the terrible pressures brought upon him to repudiate this priceless teaching of the Church -one rooted in a respect for our God-given power to give life and for the integral beauty of the marital act, which is meant to be life-giving and love-giving. I have, since my repentence over my cowardly act of 1968, done what I could to make known the truth of the Church's teaching on contraception (from 'Humanae Vitae in Context')."

I think this is important because it sheds a lot of light on the moral climate at the time of Pope Paul VI's encyclical and also how the "majority report" was used as tool rather than honest presentation of ethical investigation.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

"Actually this child you mention is
not on direct trajectory to being conceived but rather an indirect one."

No pun intended, but that is an artificial distinction. The child is just as directly on trajectory until the couple makes the deliberate decision to derail it by abstaining during the fertile period -- which, as you admit, if done for contraceptive purposes, is itself a contraceptive act, and hence per se immoral per your reasoning.

"In essence, in the former case, God is the one by His very own design who prevents the possibility of conception."

No, the couple does by choosing to refrain during that period. The critical fact is less the design of God than the decision of the couple to avoid intercourse during the fertile period to avoid a pregnancy.

"In the latter case, it is the couple who deliberately destroys the life giving
aspect of their marital act and thereby violate God's design."

But the life giving aspect is just as perfectly destroyed by restricting sex to periods in which conception is virtually impossible. One's seed is still spent in vain, because one knows that a conception will not occur.

"I heard one theologian use a very extreme example to demonstrate the difference of the two acts. He
said it is like someone receiving Holy Communion and then spitting it out."

But this analogy misses the central point that in conception we are speaking about a "potential" human life -- one can choose to give that potential reality, or not to. By critical contrast, the Eucharist is the Eucharist regardless of what one chooses to do. If one chooses to restrict conception -- using a non-abortificient means or by abstaining during the fertile period following NFP observations -- the inchoate life does not become a life -- hence, using the Eucharistic analogy, it is not the Eucharist yet -- it's not so much that one is abstaining from giving life, one knows that one cannot give life at a certain time -- so using this analogy, restricting sex to periods when conception of a life is impossible is akin to attempting to partake in the Eucharist when one knows that there is no Eucharist there to partake in (which we know is not the case when one chooses not to partake in the Eucharist, and hence the inapposite nature of this analogy). In other words, one abstains from partaking when one knows that an (inchoate) Eucharist is present, and one partakes when one knows that a Eucharist is not there. This does not seem like a laudable thing to be doing, but in any case it is obvious that the individual believer does not have the power, by an act of will, to determine whether or not an inchoate Eucharist will actually become the Eucharist, and to base one's decision to partake on that analysis, so the analogy is quite poor, and it's surprising to hear that it came from the mouth of someone considered to be a theologian.

"As St. Clement once remarked, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted"

And if you follow that reasoning literally, NFP is likewise condemned, because one is quite literally and deliberately using one's seed in vain, and wasting it -- in the sense that one is virtually certain that no conception will occur. Given that the seed exists for procreative purposes, when one ejaculates it *knowing* that a conception will not occur, that is every bit a waste of the seed and a bringing forth of the seed in vain, and this is why the true NFP zealots believe that NFP is only licitly used to time sex so as to encourage conception and not the reverse (barring extreme circumstances which apply to virtually noone in a developed country). Their logic follows St. Clement's concept here much more closely than yours does, in my opinion.

Brendan

[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

Brendan,

I'm having a hard time deciphering the main thrusts of your arguments here. Would it be fair to summarize your arguments as:

1. There is no moral difference between using NFP to arrange for sex during the woman's infertile times and using artificial contraceptives.

2. Among the NFP practitioners, the NFP "zealots" actually have the better arguments and are closer to Eastern Christian thinking on the subject.

Is this a fair summary?

In Christ,
Steven

Dear Brendon (and Friends),

Thanks for your reply to mine. I appreciate your attempt to try to get to the truth of this issue. I share with you this desire. I trust neither of us are just playing the skeptic with our minds already made up (in which case we are both wasting our time).

I AM willing to change my practice if I find what I believe is not true. This, actually, would make sex much more convenient for us, think of the sacrifice we could now avoid. Would you, likewise, be willing to change your practice if you found what you believed was wrong?

Not only this, if NFP and ABC (artificial birth control) are identical morally, I have to question why people who argue this do not just choose NFP rather than ABC, since they are morally equivalent? What is it about NFP that makes it so unacceptable to couples who accept ABC? I think the reasons are obvioius and point to something very profound about the difference between the two acts and which one is more in line with the call of the Gospel.

First off, I think we have moved back to the ole' "the end justifies the means" argument. You are comparing the legitimacy of both acts based on the similar intention of the couples. I think this is a mistake. The end does not justify the means. Both couples could have equally justifiable intentions but their act could be immoral. The example I gave in a previous post of couples living together rather than getting married demonstrates this. But your reverting to this argument is partially my fault for not explaining something correctly. Allow me try this again.

The Catholic Church is clear that the primary ends of human sexuality are: the generation of offspring and the love and communion between the couple. "Babies and bonding" are the purpose of the marrital act. The Catholic Church teaches that any sexual act which eliminates either one of these ends or aspects of human sexuality is guilty of distorting the essence of the marital embrace and sinful.

Now, I've been reviewing what I previously wrote and brushing up on my moral theology and I think I erred in something I previously wrote (something I'm very prone to do). This mistake has aided your confusion about our position on ABC. I took issue with those faithful Catholics who stated that those who use NFP are still open to life. After further review, I think they are right and THIS is one major difference between NFP and ABC. Allow me to elaborate.

Focussing on THE ACT and not the intention we can see a difference.

The Contracepting Couple usning ABC are in essence saying in their act:

"Lord, You have designed the marital act to naturally tend toward the begetting of children. By employing artificial birth control we are telling You, that for all we know You may want to create a life in this marital embrace and we wont let You."

Thus the embrace is a lie and a distortion of God's design.

The Couple using NFP (for just reasons) are saying:

"Lord, You have designed the marital act to tend toward the begetting of children. We have serious reasons for delaying the conception of another child. Therefore, we are delaying our union until the time You have designed the wife to be infertile. But if You want to create a life as a result of this marital act, we remain open to Your will and trust in Your Providence. When we do engage in the marital act, we will plant the seed where it belongs. Thy Will Be Done!

This second couple is indeed still open to new life as Elizabeth, Sharon Mech and Athanasius have alluded. God can still use that seed to create new life. Contrary to what you have said, it indeed has not been wasted. Doctors confirm that sperm can live up to three days inside the women. Therefore in reality the sperm has been placed according to God's design and God retains his sovereignty to use it as He sees fit. The likelyhood of procreation is much lower, no doubt... but it still exists. Prationers of ABC, on the other hand, usurp this right which belongs to the Creator. They have accepted the pleasure built in to the act but have distorted its purpose by making a positive act to eliminate the possibillity of procreation.

Now as for the direct trajectory thing: this is very clear to me. Perhaps I'm not explaining it very well. I'll try it again a little more methodically.

A couple using ABC who engage in sex during the fertile time could very well be stopping the conception of a child that is meant to be conceived IN THAT ACT. They engage in the marital act and frustrate its natural operation. Those using NFP do not do this.

In other words, in this example, the women is fertile and the man has the seed to complete the fertilization. The human life is set on a direct trajectory to conception. But when they engage in sex the male stops the seed from acheiving what it has been designed to achieve. That potential life which was set to be conceived in that sexual act is denied conception.

This ties into the other example I gave (rather poorly) of the desecration of something holy. The argument is that the marital embrace is a renewal of a convenental act. This is its relationship to holy Communion. Those who employ ABC go through the motions of renewing the marital convenant but then destroy its inner meaning by sterlizing a potentially life giving act. This is analagous to going through the motions of renewing the convenental act of the Holy Eucharist and then taking a potion which makes you vomit up the consecrated host. By so doing that Divine Life that was meant to be communicated the receiver is desecrated. The recipient thus denies the inner meaning of that convenental act.

I hope these explanations are a little clearer and help somewhat. Thanks for your patience with my inability to communicate truths that I, myself, have seen so effectively communicated.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

Dear Brendan,

Is not the sperm used in periods in which pregnancy will virtually not occur a "more natural" use than the other?

You make your point about the "wasting" aspect. But is not the former use at least qualitatively and even morally distinct from the latter?

Yes, a couple has a responsibility to not only be open to the possibility of children, but also to bear those it can feed and educate, according to Catholic principles.

And yes this recognizes the need for couples to control their child-bearing capacity.

And yes . . .

But I still can't help notice what I will call a qualitative, moral difference between sex intercourse in infertile periods (and abstention in fertile ones) and the alternative you've discussed.

Perhaps it's just that I'm hopelessly "Humanae Vitae."

Alex

I have read all the posts on this topic with great interest since I started this thread. Everyone's responses have been very helpful. Even though I had a hard time seeing the difference between artificial contraception and NFP, I was willing to submit to the Church's teaching on it if I became Catholic. However, I do see the difference now. Wm. Der-Ghazarian's last post on this really made the difference. What he wrote just clicked with me and I was able to understand.

God Bless!

Jenny

Dear Jenny,

Thank you first of all for beginning this thread. I am humbled if anything I have said has helped you. I also am thankful to those who have helped me to understand this teaching better. May God be Glorified by your openess and courage to understand His truth. May He grant us all to learn from your openess to always be open to this truth.

In Christ's Light,

William Der-Ghazarian

p.s. And Jenny, if this is not too personal, I wanted to add that if you ever have questions about NFP and the practice of it, I'll include some links you can look at. Also, my wife would be very willing to answer any questions about it from a woman's perspective.

Our email is:
DerGhazarian@juno.com

Couple to Couple League Learning the "Art of Natural Family Planning"
http://www.ccli.org/

One More Soul An excellent Roman Catholic Pro-Life Resource
http://www.omsoul.com/

William,

Thank you so much for the links!

I would definitely like to write to your wife to ask her some questions. Thanks for the email address!

God Bless you!

Jenny

Dear Jenny,

No problem at all. My wife, Valerie, says, if you have a question feel free to contact her privately and she'll do her best to answer it.

In His Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

I apologize for the long hiatus -- vacations happen!

I will respond to the various responses to my messages in one consolidated response.

Steven --

"1. There is no moral difference between using NFP to arrange for sex during the woman's infertile times and using artificial contraceptives."

Yes.

"2. Among the NFP practitioners, the NFP "zealots" actually have the better arguments and are closer to Eastern Christian thinking on the subject."

Actually what I intended to say is that the line of reasoning oin the patristic citations mentioned in this thread leads one to the conclusion that NFP itself is outlawed if used for a contraceptive purpose (ie, if used to avoid a pregnancy), rather than the view that NFP may be used for contraceptive purposes, for one's seed is still spent in vain if one consciously knows that it is virtually impossible for a pregnancy to occur, and one times one's sexual intercourse to coincide with that period. My own view is that the patristic citations simply do not apply to these forms of regulating pregnancy, but if one reads them the way that NFP supporters would have us read them, it seems that one must read them "all the way" -- ie, one must also agree that NFP used for contraceptive purposes is also anti-patristical and immoral per that interpretation of the fathers.

William --

"Not only this, if NFP and ABC (artificial birth control) are identical morally, I have to question why people who argue this do not just choose NFP rather than ABC, since they are morally equivalent? What is it about NFP that makes it so unacceptable to couples who accept ABC?"

Actually I have nothing against folks who wish to use NFP. My beef is with folks who say that one can *only* use NFP -- that's rather different.

"The Contracepting Couple usning ABC are in essence saying in their act:

"Lord, You have designed the marital act to naturally tend toward the begetting of children. By employing artificial birth control we are telling You, that for all we know You may want to create a life in this marital embrace and we wont let You."

Thus the embrace is a lie and a distortion of God's design.

The Couple using NFP (for just reasons) are saying:

"Lord, You have designed the marital act to tend toward the begetting of children. We have serious reasons for delaying the conception of another child. Therefore, we are delaying our union until the time You have designed the wife to be infertile. But if You want to create a life as a result of this marital act, we remain open to Your will and trust in Your Providence. When we do engage in the marital act, we will plant the seed where it belongs. Thy Will Be Done!"

But the problem with this comparison is that what couple B says is just as equally applicable to couple A, and, in fact, if NFP is more effective than non-abortificient ABC (let's call that "NAABC"), then couple B is no more open, and in fact *less* open, to the creation of a life than is couple A. In other words, couple B has no right to say that it is more open to life than couple A when they are using a method of regulating pregnancy whose promoters claim is actually more effective than the means used by couple A. Couple B is no more "open to life" than is couple A because they are specifically timing the sexual act to reduce the likelihood of conception to an even greater degree than is the case for couple A. The real question is whether, if the method of contraception does not work, couple A and couple B will accept that outcome -- and obviously if either of them do not then that is the mortal sin of abortion. But on the "front end", couple B has no moral high ground over couple A.

"In other words, in this example, the women is fertile and the man has the seed to complete the fertilization. The human life is set on a direct trajectory to conception. But when they engage in sex the male stops the seed from acheiving what it has been designed to achieve. That potential life which was set to be conceived in that sexual act is denied conception."

But the only way one can reach this conclusion logically is by narrowing, radically, the meaning of the word "act" -- rather than viewing the decision to concentrate sexuality during infertile periods as another contraceptive act. To me, both cases involve a contraceptive act -- in one case the act is having sex using NAABC, and in the other case the act is the decision to concentrate sexual activity on those periods in which NFP tells us (and which its supporters swear is true) the likelihood of conception is less than it is when one is using a condom during the fertile period.

"This is analagous to going through the motions of renewing the convenental act of the Holy Eucharist and then taking a potion which makes you vomit up the consecrated host"

Again, as I noted in my post a few weeks ago, this is more like an abortion, because the "communion", which would be the analogue of a conception, has already occurred, and one is seeking to reverse that. That's akin to an abortion. Using NAABC, one is preventing the conception from taking place. Using NFP, one is also only going to receive when you know one is not receiving communion, because receiving communion at that time would be impossible (and at the same time abstaining from going to communion when you know that communion is possible).

Alex --

"Is not the sperm used in periods in which pregnancy will virtually not occur a "more natural" use than the other?"

But not immunizing my children is also "more natural" than imunizing them. Therefore, I don't think that the natural argument, in itself, is very convincing or relevant. It's most effectively used as a buttress to the other arguments raised in support of NFP.

"You make your point about the "wasting" aspect. But is not the former use at least qualitatively and even morally distinct from the latter?"

I don't believe so, no.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

If you say so!

What the heck do I care about birth control anyway? I take a strictly "gloves off" approach - no kidding . . .

Welcome back from vacation, Big Guy - hope it was a good one!

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, everything I could say to your objections -I think- has already been stated. To me, it seems we would just be going in circles if we continue on. If what I have written has not satisfied you or demonstrated to you the difference between NFP and ABC, then I apologize. I appreciate your wanting to discuss this.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Brendan,

I guess I was wrong. There are a couple of things I might be able to add that I previously didn't mention.

First of all, I want you to know that I used to share your view. Trying to be consistent with the teachings of the Fathers who spoke very clearly against contraception, I did not employ NFP at all for several years of my marriage (and of course absolutely no contraceptives). I did this because I saw that many of them taught that sex was designed soley for the propagation of children which would seem to preclude the use of NFP, as you are arguing.

[By the way, I don't think it proper to refer to NFP as a "contraceptive." Websters defines the word as "any DEVICE or AGENT used for contraception." Neither of these are used in NFP. And, I accept your use of the abbreviation "NAABC" (non-abortifacient artificial birth control). In turn, I would call what I am referring to, "NBC" (natural birth control), but will use the common "NFP" (natural family planning).]

Later, I realized that among the Fathers their were actually two forms of anti-contraceptive views. Both of these views saw contraception as a grave distortion and frustration of God's design and evil.

Yet one view saw the marital embrace as strictly to be engaged in for the offspring of children ALONE. This was the majority of the Fathers. Yet, there were other Fathers, who all the while condemning those who artificially rendered the marital act sterile, allowed for the engaging of that act at times when no new life could result (e.g. during pregnancy) while admonishing that abstinence was the only licit means for limiting family size.

This is the precise view taken by Rome in Humanae Vitae and followed by all the Catholic Churches. There is a more comprehensive discussion of this in Chapter Five of the treatise entitled "Is Contraception Orthodox?" at the following link:

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

you said:
"for one's seed is still spent in vain if one consciously knows that it is virtually impossible for a pregnancy to occur, and one times one's sexual intercourse to coincide with that period."

reply:
No Father EVER agreed with your reasoning that having sex the way God designed, yet during an infertile time, was the same as the sinful act of destroying the life-giving potential of the sexual act.

Rather some agreed, like St. Chrysostom, that to have sexual intercourse during an infertile time was perfectly acceptable and moral (e.g. during pregnancy or by couples beyond the child bearing age). Yet these same Fathers still condemned the act of artificially destroying the natural effects of the marital act. See "Is Contraception Orthodox" for more info.

When I realized this, I became open to the possibility of using NFP for a just cause.

you said:
"Actually I have nothing against folks who wish to use NFP. My beef is with folks who say that one can *only* use NFP -- that's rather different."

reply: You missed the point of what I was asking. My point is, if what you say is true (that NFP and ABC are equally moral) why don't people who hold your view EVER just choose NFP over Aritifical Birth Control???

The answer is obvious. One practice requires sacrifice, lots of communication between the couple and a rejection of contemporary, comfortable morality. I've used both (ABC and NFP), I'm sorry to say, and I can testify before you all that there is a profound difference in the very practice of Christian morality. I challenge you and all defenders of artificial birth control, to try it for a year. Then, if you still agree there is no moral difference, go back to your previous practice. Why not do this? What do you have to risk? A new life might be born? The thought of this is enough to scare many into a perpetual use of artificial birth control. What are you all so afraid of?

And THIS is another hint of the moral difference between NFP and ABC.

you said:
"But the only way one can reach this conclusion logically is by narrowing, radically, the meaning of the word "act" -- rather than viewing the decision to concentrate sexuality during infertile periods as another contraceptive act."

reply: Not true. It is looking at more than just the intention and end (which can be identical between the practioners of ABC and NFP).

Its looking at the very act ITSELF which is radically different between NFP and ABC per the great Fathers of the Church.

One act is a condemned act, the other was endorsed by some of the Fathers. This is much more than can be said for the Onanistical practice of artificial contraception which all the Fathers (who spoke to the issue) condemned in the strongest and clearest terms.

you said:
"To me, both cases involve a contraceptive act..."

reply:
Although I strongly disagree with you, I respect your freedom to hold such an opinion.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

[ 09-08-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

There are significant differences between NFP and contraception. NFP can be used to conceive - an offten forgotten point. OK, but what about significant moral differences between NFP when used to avoid pregnancy and contraception? Here's a good concise analogy which Dr. Janet Smith uses: NFP is to contraception as dieting is to bulimia. I find condoms to be particularly illustrative of a binge-purge or bulimic sexuality.

Anybody see "The New York Times Magazine" for Sunday, 25 August 2002? (Here I introduce some consequentialist evidence about the immorality of contraception.) The cover article by a woman who lost her baby to pre-eclampsia ever-so-briefly mentioned that some researchers suspect that pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are caused by barrier contraception. Now there's no consensus yet regarding the cause, and I've seen work from the 1980s identifying a suspected link between barrier contraction and pre-eclampsia, but I thought it was interesting that even the "New York Times" published such a thought.

Er, make that "often" and "contraception."

Ireneaus,

I agree with you there are many, many, other excellent reasons for choosing NFP over ABC. Dr. Janet Smith is a very effective speaker and author on the topic. I have been presenting the reasons which most compelled me to change my life and practice in this regard. I encourage others to read more from the proponents of NFP and the official teachings of the Catholic Church as they consider this topic.

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian