'Birth control' among various Orthodox groups

[Justin]

It had been my understanding that birth control (or more accurately, contraception control) could only be used with the blessing of a spiritual father who was a Priest (exercizing oikonomia), and that in general birth control was not permitted. In that way, those who use birth control were the exceptions that proved the rule because they had to have special permission to not strictly follow Church teaching. I was recently chatting with a Greek Orthodox fellow, though, and he told me that my understanding was "very Russian," and that Holy Cross did not teach what I was saying.

What I was wondering, then, is what Holy Cross teaches on this subject, and what the Greek Church (or any Church) in general teaches the laity and the Priests on this matter. If the teaching differs from the Russian understanding, then why is there a difference? Is this a question not dealing with Tradition, but rather one of tradition that is open to change? Is it up to each Priest or Bishop to decide how strictly each canon, tradition, etc. should be enforced within the culture or with a particular person?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Justin, I just wanted to point out that it is not due to your question on Orthodox views of birth control that you've been greeted back with silence. As it is the end of Lent and the beginning of Passion Week, most of the usual discussion participants are, thankfully, spending more time in Church than online. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

I am sure this will spark some interesting conversation once Bright Week is over.

INXC, Matthew

[Justin]

Ok http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif I look forward to hearing anyone's views (any Church's view) whenever people are back to normal participation.

Christ is Risen!

[Gregory Myron]

Justin, I am not sure what Holy Cross teaches for birth control, since I've never been there. But I think that the "very Russian" practice of not allowing the use of birth control without the blessing of a bishop isn't actually "Russian", but just "traditional." Since many of the Russian churches keep to the older traditions more than in some other places, it might seem "Russian" nowadays.

I know that in most of the world (or the Orthodox world, at least) for a long time, birth control was considered bad or evil, and so a person couldn't use it unless the bishop had granted permission for some specific reason. But since birth control now isn't thought of as evil, or sex within marriage as evil if it isn't for the purpose of having children, the general rule on birth control has been changed, and permission is no longer needed.

At least that's how I understand it.

[Follower of XC]

There is an interesting article on birth control in Orthodoxy and the early fathers, which you can find online:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ274.HTM

It's written by someone who's a Roman Catholic, but he actually examines the topic mostly from the perspective of the Orthodox. He definitely feels that all forms of birth control are sinful.

[Follower of XC]

You can see a little different point of view from Father Thomas Hopko, who says:


The control of the conception of a child by any means is also condemned by the Church if it means the lack of fulfillment in the family, the hatred of children, the fear of responsibility, the desire for sexual pleasure as purely fleshly, lustful satisfaction, etc.

Again, however, married people practicing birth control are not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives are not entirely unworthy. Here again, however, such a couple cannot pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God.

This is from the original question-and-answer (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/Meeting-the-Orthodox.html#19) series on the OCA website.

[Vlad Benea]

As far as I know, birth control is considered as a "big" sin. One of the Holy Fathers (can't remember which one) says that the same way abortion is equal to murder, contraception methods means attemptive murder (I think that's the English term).

But I want to ask also, if a woman is proven to be sterile, and the meaning of making love is the conception of children, does that mean that the husband and wife should not live together (as in make love)? That's not the case with many examples from the Bible.

In Christ,
Vlad

[Mitrophan Chin]

Check these links out for some opinion on allowing the use of contraceptions:

,Does the Orthodox Church condone the use of contraceptives?
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/5654/birthcontrol.html


Has Orthodoxy accepted contraception?
http://www.geocities.com/stainlesskings888/contraception.html

In XC, Mitrophan

[Justin]

Gregory Myron


I think that the "very Russian" practice of not allowing the use of birth control without the blessing of a bishop isn't actually "Russian", but just "traditional."

Okay, yeah, that makes sense; I shouldn't have kept using the "Russian" label.


...But since birth control now isn't thought of as evil, or sex within marriage as evil if it isn't for the purpose of having children, the general rule on birth control has been changed, and permission is no longer needed.

This seems to confirm what I've since learned from some other people.

Follower of XC


There is an interesting article on birth control in Orthodoxy and the early fathers, which you can find online: ... It's written by someone who's a Roman Catholic, but he actually examines the topic mostly from the perspective of the Orthodox. He definitely feels that all forms of birth control are sinful.

I've always found Mr. Armstrong's article on the subject interesting; he seems to cast a stone at Orthodoxy for being morally lax, while forgetting that his own Church isn't exactly an "ascetic" faith these days. Ahh well, lots of different views I suppose :-)

Vlad Benea


As far as I know, birth control is considered as a "big" sin.

Does you (or anyone out there) know where there is some Orthodox literature that takes this position?

Mitrophan Chin


Has Orthodoxy accepted contraception?
http://www.geocities.com/stainlesskings888/contraception.html

I would caution strongly against using this second article. The author is much more dogmatic sounding than he should be; the reality seems to be muddier and harder to grab a hold of than the author of the 2nd article portrays. (I know, because I am the author of that article ;-) and have since seen that I did not have as good a handle on this issue as I thought I did)

[Vlad Benea]

Justin, all the Spiritual Fathers I know (here in Romania) say that contraception is a sin. In fact, as far as I knew, there never was an issue about this (only now I became aware of this). I searched all the Enchiridia of canons I have, but unfortunately I was unable to find anything about this.

But the reason contraception is a sin is the fact that it neglects the comandement of God from Genesis (1, 28) "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it". The numerous reasons that are given by those that are pro-contraception (as I read through the articles presented on this discussion) can all be used in a pro-abortion arguement, and in fact are the same: the parents do not feel they are ready for having children, or for growing they rightly (as if they are the ones that grow the children, and not Lord, see Mt 6,27: Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life (I like better the Romanian translation: who of you by worrying can add a single inch to his height)). Another reason is that the woman might be ill, and might even die at birth. Not regarding the fact that women who die at birth are regarded at martyrs and they go directly to the Heavenly Kingdom, St. Basil says that those women that will not want to have children due to illness should live in abstinence.

In Christ,
Vlad

[Vlad Benea]

Christ is risen!
Matthew, you being like the father of all (at least that's how I perceive it) here, I would like to ask you what do you think about contraception?
Sorry,
Vlad

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I have just discovered Vlad's last post to this thread, dated 29 May, which somehow I missed when he originally posted it. This will come close to a record for longest delay before a response. And despite Vlad's confusion ( http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif ) over my role as 'father' here, which I am certainly not, and despite my own misgivings about offering pure opinion, I will address the question:

Regarding birth control / contraception, my own view is that the question really is, though often is not treated as, posterior to other questions which necessarily must come first. Views on contraception are irrelevant until one has first addressed the question of sexual relationships, which forms its whole base. The question of whether or not contraception is permissable is secondary to the question of what role sexual activity is to have in a relationship according to Orthodox thought.

If one believes, as many (the majority) of the Fathers have believed, that sexual intercourse is solely and entirely for the purpose of procreation, and that this is the only context in which it is a blessed and holy act, then one's view towards the use of contraception will be well delimited: contraception's whole purpose is to allow the sexual act to take place without procreation; thus it inverts the whole purpose of the act and transforms sexual activity into an unholy and fallen passion.

The case becomes more complicated if one believes, as some (few) of the Fathers have believed, that sexual activity has a broader purpose than solely procreative, namely that within the bond of holy marriage it can serve as a unifying expression and bond of love between husband and wife. In this view, contraception might be seen as permissable solely within the marriage union, and only insofar as it does not allow sexual activity to become a controlling or uncontrolled passion.

In this latter case, the acceptance of the use of contraception has certain pre-requisites:
The only kinds of birth control that are ever seen as permissable by those Orthodox who permit them, are those which act preventatively. Any type of contraception that interferes with human life once it has begun (e.g. abortion, 'the-day-after' pills, etc) amount pure and simply to murder and are absolutely forbidden. Contraception of any sort is never to be used outside of marriage, as sexual activity is not to occur outside of marriage.However, it should be noted that, despite the use of economy by many bishops (especially in Western contexts, e.g. the USA, Europe), the canonical rule of the Church is that contraception is not permissable (situation 1, above).

My own personal opinion (for the extreme little that it is worth) is that the canons of the Church are a good and solid rule upon which to address the question ('rule' or 'guide' being exactly what the word canon means). If one is deliberating over the question of the use of contraception, it is probably best that he or she take a step back and deliberate over what role sexual activity is taking in the relationship at hand. Is it sexuality as God would have it expressed? Or is it the expression of lust and other desires that are not founded in any sort of holiness?

Beyond such comment, I do feel that such things should then be taken up with one's spiritual father.

INXC, Matthew

[Vlad Benea]

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif Hehe. It's OK Matthew. But as there are numerous (only a couple actually) other messages that have been left unanswered, I was beginning to think I was a non grata person.
http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif
I was just going to write to this thread myself.

Justin, the reason you have not found (probably) any direct reference in the Fathers about contraception is that it doesn't bear this name. Its "spiritual" name is "onania" (I do not know if this is the term in English, if someone knows it's wrong, please correct it. It comes from the name of Onan, found in Genesis, chapter. 38. Read there to understand why it is called that way. I have always thought this term was used for (excuse me) masturbation. But it is not).

Now, I think the way Matthew put the problem is precisely correct. But all of the Fathers I read condemn onania. Matthew, could you point to me any of the Fathers that say that making love can be "pursued" for itself, and not for having babies?

[Justin]

Some "hard things" here, I'm glad you all are saying them, though.

[M.C. Steenberg]

But all of the Fathers I read condemn onania. Matthew, could you point to me any of the Fathers that say that making love can be "pursued" for itself, and not for having babies?

Actually, I don't know of any off hand. I must confess that this issue of sexual practice and ethics is an area of patristic (and connected) studies in which I do not spend any considerable time. I do recall, however, attending a seminar some years ago on this theme, wherein were presented several quotations from various Fathers that provided for a broader reading of the meaning of sexual activity. I'll see if any of the other patrologists around here know of a few direct resources I can pass along to this thread.

INXC, Matthew

[John Wehling]

Friends,

Here is a lengthy quote from St John Chrysostom on marriage and sexuality. I think it is well worth the time it takes to read it carefully. I will post it and resist the temptation to analyze it for now. Note, for the present discussion, how he treats of the issue of the sexual union for those couples that cannot bear children.

The Peace of Christ,
John

``````````````````````````````````
“What? is marriage a theater? It is a mystery and a type of a mighty thing; and even if thou reverence not it, reverence that whose type it is. "This mystery," saith he, "is great, but I speak in regard of Christ and of the Church." (Eph. v. 32.) It is a type of the Church, and of Christ…They come, about to be made one body. See again a mystery of love! If the two become not one, so long as they continue two, they make not many, but when they are come into oneness, they then make many. What do we learn from this? That great is the power of union. The wise counsel of God at the beginning divided the one into two; and being desirous of showing that even after division it remaineth still one, He suffered not that the one should be of itself enough for procreation. For he is not one who is not yet [united] but the half of one; and it is evident from this, that he begetteth no offspring, as was the case also beforetime. Seest thou the mystery of marriage? He made of one, one; and again, having made these two, one, He so maketh one, so that now also man is produced of one. For man and wife are not two men, but one Man…Moreover, from the very fashioning of her body, one may see that they are one, for she was made from his side, and they are, as it were, two halves….And how become they one flesh? As if thou shouldest take away the purest part of gold, and mingle it with other gold; so in truth here also the woman as it were receiving the richest part fused by pleasure, nourisheth it and cherisheth it, and withal contributing her own share, restoreth it back a Man. And the child is a sort of bridge, so that the three become one flesh, the child connecting, on either side, each to other. For like as two cities, which a river divides throughout, become one, if a bridge connect them on both sides, so is it in this case; and yet more, when the very bridge in this case is formed of the substance of each. As the body and the head are one body; for they are divided by the neck; but not divided more than connected, for it, lying between them brings together each with the other…What then? when there is no child, will they not be two? Nay, for their coming together hath this effect, it diffuses and commingles the bodies of both. And as one who hath cast ointment into oil, hath made the whole one; so in truth is it also here. I know that many are ashamed at what is said, and the cause of this is what I spoke of, your own lasciviousness, and unchasteness. The fact of marriages being thus performed, thus depraved, hath gained the thing an ill name: for "marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled." (Heb. xiii. 4) Why art thou ashamed of the honorable, why blushest thou at the undefiled? This is for heretics, this is for such as introduce harlots thither. For this cause I am desirous of having it thoroughly purified, so as to bring it back again to its proper nobleness, so as to stop the mouths of the heretics. The gift of God is insulted, the root of our generation; for about that root there is much dung and filth. This then let us cleanse away by our discourse. Endure then a little while, for he that holdeth filth must endure the stench. I wish to show you that ye ought not to be ashamed at these things, but at those which ye do; but thou, passing by all shame at those, art ashamed at these; surely then thou condemnest God who hath thus decreed….Shall I tell how marriage is also a mystery of the Church? As Christ came into the Church, and she was made of him, and he united with her in a spiritual intercourse, "for," saith one, "I have espoused you to one husband, a pure virgin." (2 Cor. xi. 2.) And that we are of Him, he saith, of His members, "and of His flesh." Thinking then on all these things, let us not cast shame upon so great a mystery. Marriage is a type of the presence of Christ….If thou drive away all these things [Satanic reverie at the wedding feast], even Christ will come to such a marriage, and Christ being present, the choir of Angels is present also. If thou wilt, He will even now work miracles as He did then; He will make even now the water, wine (John ii.); and what is much more wonderful, He will convert this unstable and dissolving pleasure, this cold desire, and change it into the spiritual. This is to make of water, wine.”
--St John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians

[Justin]

I understand that Solomon's Song is usually interpreted typologically (or allegorically), but is nothing ever (positively) said in the Church regarding the fact that there is obviously more than reproduction in mind here? (e.g., Song 4:1-16; 7:1-10; etc.)

John, as always I found Saint John's words interesting, thank you for posting them.

[M.C. Steenberg]

John, thank you for posting the quotation from St John Chrysostom. This is, indeed, the very type of quotation to which I referred above.

Many people are surprised to learn that the patristic witness is not unanimous in its presentation of sexual intercourse as intended purely for procreative ends.

INXC, Matthew

[Vlad Benea]

Thank you John, for your quotation. Unfortunately though, I was unable to understand it (because it is Shakespearean English. I did not think it will have so much effect). Also, the Homilies to Colossians of St. John are not translated in Romanian. If anyone could translate the quotation in plain English, I would greatly appreciate it. Please forgive me,

And thank you,
Vlad

[Michael Casey]

Friends:

I caught a portion of a radio program by a recent convert from Protestantism who was discussing contraception within the context of Church history. He stated that documents clearly indicate that before the 1930s an overwhelming majority of churches and denominations (if not all of them) in the United States condemned contraception. In fact, he quoted the founders of Protestantism (i.e. Luther, Calvin, etc.) who used strong language denouncing the use of contraception, and declaring its usage a "big" sin. Luther referred to those using contraception as "swine." It must also be noted the modern society--in most countries--view contraception much like abortion. It is a personal choice. It is convenient. "Stay out of my bedroom" type of attitude. Fortunately for us we are called to live in the world, but not be of the world.

From a philosophical perspective in agreement with the teachings of the Church, contraception is evil. The use of contraception devalues marriage, sexual intercourse, and in a particular way, the woman. Since the inception of its wide use in the 1960s, women have become objects of desire. With contraception the meaning of the marital act is reduced to pleasure. It is obvious that God intended it to be pleasurable for married couples. Yet, God also "attached" responsiblility to the marital act. With contraception the responsiblility and ultimate purpose (procreation)of the marital act is nulified. With contraception the opposite spouse, especially the woman, is seen as a means to a pleasurable end. History proves that this first step of reducing the marital act to irresponsible pleasure was the stepping stone to the Sexual Revolution that dominated the 1970s. Afterall, since the value and responsibility of sex are voided out due to contraception, why not engage in pleasuring myself outside marriage. If the marital act is now reduced to pleasure due to contraception, why not engage such pleasure with whoever is willing. This approach to sex views the opposite sex as an object of pleasure. The person that he or she is is now bypassed by lustful desires. Now it is the common practice to sleep with potential spouses to ensure compatibility. But it gets worse.

What happens if contraception fails? Abortion! Person a and b get together. The pill or condom fails. What to do? Get an abortion. So now the irresponsibility and sexual abuse brought about by contraception leads to the greater evil of abortion. I am a public high school teacher. Teenage girls are heading to abortion clinics regularly saying to themselves, "but he used a condom" or "I didn't miss a pill." As a result of contraception we have the widespread destruction of the unborn.

Finally,common sense dictates that married couples should not block the procreative potential of the marital act given to us as a gift from God. The Church Fathers and Traditional Church teachings condemn birth control/contraception for a reason. Like the 10 Commandments, God is protecting us from ourselves. Contraception is condemned throughout the Bible, and the teachings of the Church. We see the result of the sin of contraception--the millions of unborn children destroyed yearly. Countless divorces. Women being victimized as sexual objects. Widespread sex outside of marriage. Sexually transmitted diseases (some that kill too). But what is also sad is the deprivation of the relationship between a husband and a wife. The marital act is a bonding act both physically and emotionally. A great commitment to one another is cemented everytime the husband and wife give each other completely to the other. The love that is poured during this marital bond is so real that you may have to give him or her a name nine months later.

I will be willing to give both biblical and church teachings quotes if requested. For now I just wanted to approach the topic from a common sense perspective.

In Christ the Light Bearer,

Michael Casey

Michael Solanus

[Justin]

I'd be interested in any Orthodox quotes from before the 1920's, if you could direct us towards them or possibly type one or two out. I of course go along with the Church in thinking contraception a bad thing, certainly something to be avoided. Generally speaking, contraception is to be avoided.

Yet not everyone can remain celibate (as was mentioned earlier) if, for instance, they would possibly die from a pregnancy. So do the people then take the chance of getting pregnant and someone dying, or use contraception? To say "well they will simply have to follow canon law and learn to live with it" demonstrates only that people are spending too much time in books (and on theology forums) and not enough time in the real world (e.g., not enough time ministering to actual people you can look in the eye and have a responsibility over; cf Heb. 13:17).

Of course, canons are guides, not immovable rules, and I'd be intersted in hearing any cases in Church history, if anyone knows of some, in which the "rules were bent" concerning an issue like this (other than divorce, in which case God himself "bent the rules" to allow for human weakness).

[Owen Jones]

The whole point of the Church, Justin, is to have a place to go to bend the rules and share the burden of sin for it so it doesn't fall totally on our shoulders.

Owen Jones

[Michael Casey]

Dear Justin:

Remember too Justin, you are judged by God individually. Here are some Early Christian quotes regarding the morality of contraception.

Here is something interesting to begin this discussion: In the 1963 edition of the acclaimed book entitled, <u>The Orthodox Church</u> by Timothy Kallistos Ware, it states that &#34;Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church&#34; &#40;p. 302&#41;.

Getting to the Early Church Fathers! Saint John Chrysostom declares that contraception &#34;stand&#40;s&#41;&#34; with heretics and as doing the work of &#34;murderers&#34; &#40;On Galations 5, PG 61:668-669&#41; & &#40;Homily 62 on Matthew 19, PG 58:599&#41;. In addition to Saint John&#39;s reference to contraception as &#34;a murder before birth,&#34; he speaks forcefully against contraception in Homily 24 on the Epistle to the Romans:

&#34;Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit? Where there are medicines of sterility? Where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain a harlot, but you make here a murderess as well. Do you see that from drunkenness comes fornication, from fornication adultery, from adultery murder? Indeed, it is omething worse than murder and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents it formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God, and fight with His laws? What is a curse, do you seek as though it were a blessing? Do you make the anteroom of birth the anteroom of slaughter? Do you teach the woman who is given to you for the procreation of offspring to perpetrate killing? That she may always be beautiful and lovable to her lovers, and that she may rake in more money, she does not refuse to do this, heaping fire on your head; and even if the crime is hers, you are the cause. Hence also arise idolatries. To look pretty many of these women use incantations, libations, philtres, potions, and innumberable other things. Yet after such turpitude, after murder, after idolatry, the matter sill seems indifferent to many men--even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the marriedmen there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumberable tricks, invocations of demons, incantations of the dead, daily wars, ceaseless battles, and unremiting contentions&#34; &#40;Homily 24 on the Epistle to the Romans PG 60: 626-627&#41;.

And again Saint John Chrysostom states that individuals avoiding the conception of children by the use of contraception &#34;multilate nature, not only killing the newborn [&#40;abortion&#41;], but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [&#40;contraception&#41;]&#34; &#40;Homily 28 on Matthew 5 p. 57: 357&#41;.

Quoting from a book by Eve Levin entitled, Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slaves, 900-1700, the author states:

&#34;Because only the birth of a child justified sexual intercourse between husband and wife, any attempt to prevent conception was regarded as evil. From the medieval Slavic perspective, contraception, abortion, and infanticide were similar offenses; provision against birth control did no always distinguish among them. All three represented the same thing: an attempt to forestall the introduction into the world of a new soul. For that reason, all three offenses were sometimes call dusegube, literally &#39;the destruction of a soul&#39;&#34; &#40;Levin, 1989, pp. 175-176&#41;.

One more point before I end this posting, although I will proivde more at a later date, may be found in <u>The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium</u>, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, 1991.

St. John the Faster considers contraception a form of infantcide when discussing different forms of birth control.

St. John Chrysostom refers to it as a &#34;murder before birth.&#34;

St. Epiphanious of Cyprus in the Panarion 26.5.2-6 denouces those Gnostics who purposefully avoided the conception and/or birth of children by &#34;coitus interruptus or abortion.&#34;

I hope this helps. Remember too that Natural Family Planning, when used with an appropriate intention, does not block God&#39;s procreative power. The Couple to Couple League do a wonderful job discussing the pros of Natural Family Planning &#40;NFP&#41;.

In Christ the Light Bearer,

Michael Casey

[Owen Jones]

Bear in mind, of course, that if a couple were to rigorously follow the feasts and fasts, and proper preparation for communion, this has the practical effect of natural birth control.

Owen Jones

[Justin]

While I would be interested in seeing any quotes other than those that can be found on Dave Armstrong&#39;s site, I&#39;d like to thank you for putting the above quotes up, Michael. Forgive me if I seem hardheaded or unwilling to budge from where I&#39;m standing.

[Michael Casey]

Brother Justin,

Here is a biblical quote followed by a number of early Church quotes denouncing contraception.

&#34;And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother&#39;s wife, that he spilled on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also&#34; &#40;Gn. 38:9-10&#41;.

&#34;God made the male and female for the propagation of the human race&#34; &#40;Saint Irenaeus, Against All Heresies&#41;.

&#34;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. To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature&#34; &#40;Saint Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children&#41;.

&#34;They &#40;certain Egyptian heretics&#41; exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption&#34; &#40;Saint Epiphanius of Salamis, Medicine ChestAgainst Heresies&#41;.

&#34;...and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live&#34; &#40;<u>Saint John Chrysostom</u>, [i]homilies on Matthew&#41;.

&#34;And then, fearing because of your law against child-bearing...they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law pimps&#34; &#40;Saint Augustine of Hippo, Against Faustus&#41;.

<u>&#34;For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting &#40;children&#41; is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust&#34;</u> &#40;Saint Augustine of Hippo, The Good of Marriage.

Justin, I hope this helps. I am a married man with four children. God willing, we plan on having more. We do not use artificial means of birth control. Contraception clearly violates biblical teachings, Church teachings, and the natural law. Common sense dictates to our human reason that the deliberate blockage of the procreative/life giving act between a husband and a wife is wrong. It is simply wrong.

Dave Armstrong is just the tip of the ice berg when it comes to quotes. He is just a starting point. I hope these further quotes from the early Church help. Yet, if Armstong&#39;s quotes are reliable &#40;i.e. actual quotes&#41;, why don&#39;t you listen to them? Just a question. If you need more let me know.

In Christ the Light Bearer,

Michael Casey

[Justin]

Michael,


Dave Armstrong is just the tip of the ice berg when it comes to quotes. He is just a starting point. I hope these further quotes from the early Church help. Yet, if Armstong's quotes are reliable (i.e. actual quotes), why don't you listen to them? Just a question. If you need more let me know.

Yes, they were very helpful, thank you very much. I was hoping for more quotes than the ones found on Armstrong's site only because I had seen them a couple times before. The main problem here, the reason that I'm taking such a hard stance, is because I may in actuality fall into one of the "extreme" examples that can be mentioned when discussing an issue like this. My fiancee's cardiologist has informed her that she has a high risk of dying should she become pregnant. So what then is to be done? Do we both remain celibate? I believe we both could do this if absolutely necessary (when push comes to shove, we are devoted to God's will as revealed by His Church), but how tough would that be? We want children, we want lots of children, and we're certainly going to adopt if we can't have our own. So it's not an issue of not actually wanting to reproduce. We are also going to follow the traditional times of abstaining from relations; we are not two lust filled teens trying to tear into each other. If we did indeed use contraception we would be asking forgiveness day and night (which may sound a bit overstated, but I mean only in our daily prayers). It may very well come down to a matter of life and death for someone, my (future) wife or my (future) child. Now, if both our spiritual fathers tell us that it's ok to use contraception, how hard is that permission (economy) to turn away from?

I know it's not terribly fair to get personal on a public forum, but this is the only way I can explain my hard-headedness. I need more than quotes from a couple Fathers, blessed and grace-filled as they may be, to convince me, and my fiancee, to put her life at risk. I've tried to remain optimistic and upbeat during the conversation about the issue, but I'm afraid you'll have to forgive my seeming hard-headedness or being difficult right now. I do thank you for the quotes, and if you have more and could put them up (or link me too them, or suggest a book I might not be aware of), please feel free to offer the info. God Bless you and your family.

[Vlad Benea]

Dear Justin,

I followed this discussion very interested.

I think this discussion is very useful, as this same problem could come up to virtually any couple.

Now you asked before of bending the canons. Though it has no connection to contraception, here is one such case. It's about the baptism made by heretics.

St. Cyprian of Carthage says that the baptism made by heretics is not a valid one. Following him, a Council held in Carthage decided the same thing. This Council was approved by the 6th Ecumenical Council (2nd Canon), which canon also approved the first canon of St. Basil the Great, which clearly states that the baptism made by heretics should not be accepted. So when a heretic turned to the Church, even if he was baptised by his own church, he was re-baptised (there were some exceptions, namely the church of Rome). The same says St. Athanasius about the baptism of arians, which is not valid as it is not made correctly in the name of the Holy Trinity. But namely almolst all of the Fathers say this: St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, St. Leon the Great, St. Ambrose.

However though, the 2nd Ecumenical Council (381) did accept the baptism of some heretics as being valid. Why, might it be asked? How did the council reacted against such clear statements of the Fathers and the Councils? So in order to clearly understand that (I find it very hard to express myself in English), it must be said that the Church has two ways of acting, and of straightening those strayed away from the church: One way is called acribia (in Romanian scumpatate, I don't know the English term, sorry), and the other is called oeconomia (in Romanian pogoramant, again I don't know the English term). With these two ways of acting our Holy Fathers have "managed" the gifts of the Holy Spirit, in order to achieve the salvation of as many souls as possible.

Therefore the Fathers above mentioned have used acribia and because of this they do not accept the baptism made by heretics as a whole.

But the 2nd Ecumenical Council, using oeconomia, accepts the baptism of some heretics (mainly moderated arians and pnevmatomachs) and dismisses the baptism of others (eunomians, or extremist arians). The reason for that is obvious. In the time of the 2nd Ecumenical Council, the strength of the Arians was great, far "outnumbering" the power of the Orthodoxs, as the emperor and many of the high-men of the empire were arians. So if the arians would have found out that the Orthodoxs do not accept their baptism, they would have easily turned against the Church, and the damage they could have done would have been immense. Also, the number of arians was very very high, so it would have been totally impractical to baptise each one of them when returning to the church. (most of them were unconscient heretics, as most of the people did not clearly understand the difference between the different types of arianism and orthodoxy)
I know this was a long excursus, but I was trying to answer your question.

Now regarding contraception. It is true, that the burden of living a life like this (married yet not living with your wife) is very tough. I don't think I would personally be able to do it. Perhaps more help would come from those that do actually live this kind of life (I am sure there are such people). But not all of us are saints. As St. Paul says (again do understand that I don't have an Orthodox translation of the Bible) in one of his epistles, that the husband and wife should not live away of each other for too long in order of not falling into adultery. (paraphrased) This must also be taken into account, cause even if we say this will never happen, let's remember that our enemy (Satan) never sleeps, and it's his duty to make us fall.

There would be the other thing that God might do a miracle regarding your fiancee, as you are so willing to follow God's commandement. Depends on each other's faith.

Again, I think that the problem overcomes me. Perhaps that if you say you adopt a child, then I don't know. I am very curious what the other people will say to you.

One final thing. Here in Romania I have this habit. (or we do, me and my girlfriend). We have a spiritual father, who is a saint (and he really is). But when he sees that we are not entirely convinced of his oppinions and of fulfilling what he says to us (this is who we are), he sends us to other spiritual fathers, who are known to be very advanced in the spiritual life, who are known for their kardiognosis. So what I'm saying is this: even though you have talked to your spiritual father regarding contraception (which is already a great thing, and the best advice you could possibly receive) ask him to give his blessing that you ask some other spiritual fathers (known to be advanced, perhaps you could ask him of any) regarding your problem (which problem could be anyone's, so I really admire the fact that you put it forward on a public forum, let's hope it will help other people as well). I don't know how the situation over there in America is regarding spiritual fathers, but I do know that God has it's people everywhere.

Also, intense prayer might help you overcome this thing. St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, for example, is the "protector" of married couples. Perhaps you and your fiancee could read his Acathist (don't know the English name). I know it helps. You could do it for 40 days before marriage, in order for this problem (and others)to be solved. (It is not me saying this, from my mind, but Fr. John of Posaga, a great spiritual father here in Romania says it). But do ask for the blessing of your spiritual father before you do this, of course. (that is if you want to do it).

One last thing: if you want, I could ask my spiritual father, Father Seraphim (who, as I said, is a saint, and never was I wrong when I took his advice, ever).

I think this would be the solution: ask people who you know are spiritually advanced about it.

Sorry for posting such a long message. I really hope it will help a bit and I really admire your openess,

In Christ,
Vlad

[Silouan's Namesake]

All,
Dave Armstrong is a virulent anti-anything-not-Roman and has a dim view of the Orthodox. One has only to review his website &#34;interviews&#34; with Orthodox to determine this. He is terribly one-sided in his approach.

The Church is wise. There are matters of dogma on which she has found it very important to make pronouncements and there are other matters in which great latitude to hold personal opinions is also granted-- more of the latter, I think, than the former.

My wife is Roman Catholic; I am a convert from Protestant to Roman Catholic to Orthodoxy. This is an issue with which I have struggled greatly. Forgive me for adding my own personal opinion, here, but, perhaps, it may be useful to some.

As a Protestant, I was convinced that we should let God have his way-- no control &#40;artificial or &#34;natural&#34;&#41; of our own, that is. As a Roman Catholic, I was given the &#34;natural law&#34; line to which Michael Casey refers, above. Natural law theory is utterly foreign to Orthodoxy, as, at its roots, it places us human beings in subjection to creation and not as the height of creation, made in the image and likeness of God and, thanks to Christ&#39;s work, capable of restoring that image and likeness. Father John Romanides&#39; recently-translated-into-English work &#34;The Ancestral Sin&#34; is excellent in exposing the Western concepts into which I, though Orthodox, often find myself buying. If you can find it, Father Paul O&#39;Callaghan of St. George Cathedral in Wichita has written an excellent response to a Roman Catholic &#34;natural law&#34; advocate regarding the differences between Orthodoxy and RC, particularly as it regards contraception and also homosexuality &#40;as the RC author was equating the two&#41;; the article was in the Christian Journal of Bio-Ethics or some such publication-- well worth reading. If you can&#39;t find a copy, e-mail him and see if he can&#39;t drop you an e-copy.

Also, the quotes from Armstrong&#39;s site do not even begin to encompass the vast thinking of the Fathers in this area. I would direct everyone to John Noonan&#39;s seminal &#40;no pun intended&#41; work on the topic, called simply &#34;Contraception.&#34; It is out of print, but a book search or Eighth Day Books ought to be able to find you one-- it could run you $50 or so for an academic edition. It clearly points out the confusion between contraception, abortion, and infanticide which were inseparably linked together by fact in eras prior to the modern centuries. Noonan was a federal Circuit Court judge and an advisor to the Vatican on the papal encyclical &#34;Humanae Vitae.&#34; His work reaches a singularly different conclusion on the historical sources than does the encyclical &#40;which, you may note, is rather scant on &#34;meat&#34;&#41;.

Where does this leave one? I think it leaves one exactly where Justin is-- discuss this with your spiritual father &#40;if you have one and he is grounded in the faith&#41;. Take his word for it-- he is responsible for your soul. Be careful in all events to ensure that any method of contraception used is not abortifacient. Note that oral contraceptives, IUD&#39;s, Norplants, and injectables &#40;basically, all chemical contraceptives&#41; can all have this effect &#40;despite repeated denials by self-interested medical professionals-- check the package insert or PDR for easy verification&#41; and are thus morally unacceptable means.

Note that Wm. Der Ghazarian-Wolfe, a member of the Armenian church in communion with Rome &#40;I believe&#41; has recently posted on the web a brief write-up called &#34;Is Contraception Orthodox?&#34; It is very much along the lines of Armstrong&#39;s and, again, is scant on historical analysis &#40;citing Noonan but ignoring his analysis entirely&#41; and on discussion of the various views of the Fathers &#40;apart from Augustine&#41;.

God be with you all as you struggle with this difficult area. May he grant you peace.

[Michael Casey]

Justin:

My wife and I practiced--and are currently practicing--Natural Family Planning &#40;NFP&#41; for ten years--under spiritual direction of course. NFP is more effective than any form of artificial birth control &#40;contraception&#41;. You must visit the Couple-to-Couple League website! A woman can track her cycle via temperature; monitor certain female secretions; track her mentrual cycle; as well as other scientific techniques and methods to effectively avoid engaging the marital act during fertile periods. Again, check the Couple-to-Couple League website. We have a book published by the Couple-to-Couple League that explains how to do it. It gives all the scientific data that proves its worth and effectiveness. It also provides charts and other information to track data. Again, my wife and I did not conceive a child for ten years. By the way, my wife and I have had four babies in the last five years. My wife&#39;s fertility, or mine for that matter, is not an issue. Justin, you really need to explore Natural Family Planning.

Also, what if your spiritual father is misinformed. No disrespect intended. However, let&#39;s face it, there are many problems in the Church today--as in the past &#40;nothing new&#41;. My wife and I have received misinformed information on this very matter. Regardless, contraception has been condemned by the Church from the beginning. From the Old Testament on the deliberate practice to block the procreative power of the marital act has been condemned. Why all of a sudden it is now o.k. by some &#40;many&#41;? Satan would love nothing more than to convince the masses of married couples that it is morally right to deny God the opportunity to create souls for heaven. God respects our free will. There are tons of issues that the Bible and the Fathers condemn but the world today thinks morally o.k. Homosexuality, premarital sex, living together before marriage, distributing condoms in public schools to students, etc... Interesting. Also keep in mind that the &#34;pill&#34; is an abortifacient. Again, Justin, you need to really look into this matter from all sides.

Finally &#40;I got to wrap this up because my kids want to play with me&#41;, there is nothing wrong with viewing this subject from a natural perspective. Natural Law is not a &#34;roman&#34; thing. It is a human thing. Aristotle was the one who really put this &#34;common sense&#34; philosophy to the forefront. It goes against human reason to think that God did not order nature, and that we can not learn from it. Think about the hydrological cycle alone! Think of the complexities of the four seasons! Think about the make-up of the human eye! Think about the sciences! It is folly not to see God in His creation! Hence, we can learn many things from a prayerful, reflective, and philosophical approach and study of God&#39;s ordered creation--which includes human reproduction/procreativity.

I want to discuss this further but I must attend to my childre--wonderful blessings from God.

In Christ the Light Bearer,

Michael Casey

[Vlad Benea]

Michael, I read your message and I find it very difficult to understand some points.
Now I want to ask you, you quoted numerous Fathers, the Holy Scripture, etc. etc., very vigurously and with no compromise whatsoever, proving &#40;with quotes&#41;, that the Fathers condemn contraception and that the marital act is blessed solely for procreation. Now how does Natural Family Planning differ from other sorts of contraception? Why is it more &#34;blessed&#34;? Is it not simply another way of seeking pleasure and not the logical aftermath, children? Is it not all the things you wrote above about contraception &#40;except for the artificial things&#41;? Why should the story of Onan from the Bible not refer to Natural Family Planning as well? Is it not another way of &#34;throwing the seed&#34; on the ground? You said it yourself, NFP is scientifcally proven. So you know that when you make love, the children will not come afterwards. Please do not be upset with me, or don&#39;t be offended &#40;as this is really not my intention&#41;, but I find this rather hypocritical. At least Justin has the humbleness of knowing he does something not very accepted by the church, and if accepted only because of &#34;oeconomia&#34;.
Sorry again.
In Christ,
Vlad

[Michael Casey]

Vlad:

Natural Family Planning &#40;NFP&#41; involves no choice to treat the procreative good as an evil and to act directly against it, whereas contraceptive intercourse does. In practicing NFP a married couple adopts a policy to have sexual intercourse at infertile times and to refrain from intercourse at fertile times if they have serious reasons to avoid a pregnancy. Refraining from intercourse is not contraceptive intercourse, since it is not intercourse at all. The refraining from intercourse which is involved in NFP does not involve the anti-procreative intention of contraceptive intercourse. Neither do the acts of intercourse in which a couple engages during infertile periods have this intention. Nothing is done to any of them to render them infertile, since nature itself has made them infertile. NFP is therefore not the same as contraception. On the other hand, contraception involves using a chemical or physical barrier to deliberately block conception. In contraceptive intercourse one does what one knows to be a potentially procreative act, and because of this, one also acts to ensure that the procreative potential of that act is not realized. This is acting directly against the procreative good of the marital act given to us by God. When using NFP one&#39;s intention to avoid a pregnancy is achieved by abstaining from the sexual/marital act that one believes will be procreative &#40;abstention from the marital act&#41;. When using NFP one does not act against the procreative good given to us by God. Moreover, NFP promotes the other goods of marriage. The sexual life of the married couple using NFP is controlled by the virtue of chastity and purity. The efforts of self-control must be mutual; thus couples living by NFP are given a motive to unite in a common effort of the human will. Furthermore, this chaste union between a husband and a wife drastically limits the temptation for couples to treat each other as objects/instruments for sexual gratification and pleasure, and further allows their sexual expression to be an expression of human communication, of their marital convenant, and of the love of Christ.

Hence, my dear Romanian friend Vlad, NFP and contraception are not the same. NFP, used by a married couple with appropriate intentions--such as Justin&#39;s when the time comes--is not contraceptive. It does not purposefully and willfully block the procreative power of God. It does not treat the reproduction/procreativity as something bad that needs to be medicated like cancer.

I referenced a few authorities on the topic before responding to your posting &#40;R. Lawler, J. Boyle, Jr., and W. May&#41;. I wanted to be clear and precise as possible.

Finally, please note any confusion you may have regarding my postings. I am nearing the completion of a master&#39;s degree in moral philosophy. Sometimes I get writing and fail to remember that not everyone is pumped up about philosophy as I am. Again, please bring to my attention any questions or clarifications you may have.

In Christ the Light Bearer,

Michael Casey

[Vlad Benea]

Michael:

It is true I am not "pumped up" in philosophy. Nor do I ever want to be. Also, one of my greatest setbacks is the use of English, into which I have a realy hard time expressing myself. My problem does not involve the use of as many "intercourse" and "contraceptive" as possible. Nor to reference to any "authority".

My problem is much simpler. You said: "note any confusion you might have regarding my postings". So I picked one of your postings (randomly). This is the first quote I found: "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (Saint Clement of Alexandria , The Instructor of Children").

Tell me please, how does NFP differ from this?

Thank you,
Vlad

[Michael Casey]

My Romanian Friend,

I think you have to take this quote in context. Is St. Clement suggesting that marital relations are strictly to be reserved for fertile periods? I doubt they were even aware of the intricicies of the female reproductive cycle. Nevertheless, you are ignoring everything else I have written about Natural Family Planning &#40;NFP&#41;. Again, the point is that contraception employs a physical or chemical barrier that prevents a potentially procreative act from bearing fruit. Contraception treats fertility as a disease.

Think about it like this. Food is a good given to us by God. We need it for survival. We also enjoy eating food. Moreover, it is not wrong to abstain from eating food for good reasons&#40;i.e. fasting, for physical fitness, etc...&#41;. Yet, it would be wrong to eat a lot of food for the enjoyment, and then vomit it up to avoid the consequences or to eat more food. Likewise, sexual intercourse is a good given to us by God. We need it for survival. Married couples also enjoy the marital act. Moreover, it is not wrong to abstain from sexual intercourse for good reasons. It is, however, wrong to engage in the marital act solely for the pleasure, and at the same time purposefully and intentionally use contraception &#40;vomit analogy with food&#41; to thwart God&#39;s procreative power and ultimate intention for the marital act. Saint Clement may be instructing on the point that God&#39;s ultimate purpose for the marital act is procreation &#40;Genesis&#41;. Remember, he was writing at a time, much like our modern day, when lust, homosexuality, and sexual abuse of different types were rampant. He, like many of the Early Church Fathers, were very direct. We could use very direct preaching today--especially on marital chastity.

Vlad. I must get going. Please respond with your thoughts.

In Christ the Light Bearer,

Michael Casey

[John Wehling]

Michael and Vlad,

It seems to me that perhaps the two of you are having difficulty understanding one another because Michael continues to talk about the science of NFP and how it differs from contraceptives while Vlad is making a more practical point, namely, that even with NFP one is still purposely avoiding conception. I think this is a valid point Michael, and one that deserves a response.

Peace,
John

[M.C. Steenberg]

[...] Even with NFP one is still purposely avoiding conception. I think this is a valid point Michael, and one that deserves a response.

Michael, I must admit that I would like to hear your response to this. What John and Vlad have both raised is the point of deliberately intending not to conceive when entering into the sexual act. While the artificiality of contraceptive means is obviously avoided by the means of 'NFP' that you have described, the intention is precisely the same. And with most of the quotations from the Fathers on this topic, the intention of preventing the procreative process during sexual intercourse is exactly what is prohibited.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

I always get a kick out of these kinds of discussions among the Orthodox brethren because they are abstractions and tend to miss the point of what the Church is all about.

The most rigorous sayings of the Fathers and the Desert Fathers on moral matters imply certain given situations as a precondition. They are not universally applicable. Christianity is not for everyone, and within the Church there are different standards of application depending on your situation, vocation, etc. This is not the same as relativism or nihilism. The Church introduces into history the idea of a universal or common humanity &#40;although Aristotle to some degree anticipates this&#41;. But that does not mean that a common rule of life is applicable to all. God does not judge people that way. We do not need to get into Jesuitical casuistry to understand and appreciate that this is obvious.

To be specific, it is entirely unreasonable and unChristian to expect Christian husbands and wives to adhere to the highest standards of sexuality without the support and guidance and teaching of a loving community. And even in the ideal situation, when a family is lucky enough to be part of a Christian community where this teaching is being practiced with the encouragement and support of the Bishop, the clergy, perhaps a local elder, it is too much to expect everyone to achieve this goal perfectly or all the time. It&#39;s just totally unrealistic. It is a goal, an ideal, which expresses a spiritual principle. The people who are living a perfectly chaste marriage lovingly &#40;not because they are compelled to do so by the sex police or are doing so out of resentment toward each other -- also very rare&#41; are serving an iconic function for the rest of us &#40;just as monks serve an iconic function for us in terms of pointing us in the direction of the perfected life -- but we cannot live by that same standard in a literal way&#41;. LIkewise, the Church as a whole exists, not because everyone in the world can or even should be Christian. That&#39;s impossible. But it serves an iconic function. And a propitiatory function as well. In the same sense in which a non-believing person can be sanctified by the faith of his spouse.

Objectification of values is a very modern sin. What applies to you may simply not apply to me in each and every case. Now, some Divine dictates are to be taken literally. Thou shalt not commit murder is to be taken literally, and therefore the Church has an absolute obligation to effect its teachings on abortion in the secular political sphere. but still in a loving and understanding way, through the way it lives out its life. The Church has no moral authority on any subject unless people can look at Christians and be astonished at how different we look, act, think and behave. Without that, all of our theologising is less than useless. We are nothing but a brood of vipers.

[Justin]

Still paying attention... am looking forward to responses... is very good...

[John Wehling]

Owen,

Granting your point&#40;s&#41; in the last post, I don’t see how that nullifies discussion on the issue of birth control. Yes, we live by grace and by “economia” in seeking salvation as persons. And no, we do not seek merely to obey a law or set of canons as ends in themselves, but as markers on the way toward union with God. Neither of these caveats means, however, that there is no need to understand and discern the will of God as it concerns the issue of birth control and human sexuality. These are not abstractions if we ask, “how am I to keep the commandments of God.” If we cannot practice sex within the will of God as it is expressed in the Church &#40;by the scriptures, Fathers, etc.&#41;, we can at least acknowledge our weakness and continue to struggle toward God.

There is a tendency, at least within the field of my experience and that of dear friends of mine, to interpret “economia” as a relaxing of the Church’s teaching. What happens, in effect, is that we begin by allowing for economia in a specific area of our lives &#40;fasting, sex, prayer, etc.&#41; because we cannot keep the strict rule, but very soon, that which has been given to us as a mercy--a sort of extension of the ladder down lower to our level so that we can reach it and begin to climb--we have settled into as a permanent residence.

There is a sort of holy tension to this Orthodox life, always struggling, always realizing that we fall short of sharing God’s glory, and yet not becoming despondent because we have found ourselves once again, day after day, in the pig trough. We cannot settle into the comfort that kills any more than we can turn the commandments of God into a system of casuistry.

Wiping the pig slop off once again,
John

[Owen Jones]

the primary point I wished to make is that the structure doesn&#39;t exist today for these standards to hold. Not that the standards should be done away with. But that we can&#39;t have a realistic expectation of many people being able to adhere to them, given the current church structure. That is a chicken or the egg problem, to be sure, but it&#39;s a problem that should be part of any discussion on the standards. No discussion of a moral standard ought to be devoid of a discussion about how we are to live up to them. It&#39;s not a mental problem, or a problem ow the will, at least not exclusively, but a spiritual problem, and I do not believe God expects all of us to live up to a high moral standard without some spiritual support.

[Michael Casey]

Glory to Jesus Christ:

Vlad, Matthew, John, Justin, and Others,

Sorry for the delay in my response to some of the postings on the 9th and 10th of this month.

I agree. Natural Family Planning users and contraception users both have the end objective to prevent the conception of a child. However, we must take a minute and look at the means&#40;NFP or contraception&#41; to achieve the common end &#40;prevention of conception&#41;. Both NFP and contraception users may have good reasons to avoid pregnancy. But the means to achieve the common end are very different. The NFP married couple intends to abstain from the marital act during fertile periods in order to avoid pregnancy. On the other hand, the married couple using contraception intends to sterilize and/or frustrate fertile intercourse. The intention of the couple is the deciding factor. Both married couples have the same objective, but the means to achieve that end are very different. Contracepting couples choose to engage in the marital act, knowing full well that the outcome of the marital act may end with new human life, and as a result of this potential end, the couple intentionally blocks &#40;either chemically or physically&#41; the fertility of the act. The NFP couple NEVER blocks, frustrates, or impedes the procreative power of sexual intercourse. The NFP couple never acts directly against God&#39;s procreative design for human fertility. Let me make an analogy to help convey the difference between NFP and contraception.

Two married couples have the same objective end to acquire money to build a beautiful new home. Couple #1 works hard and long at their jobs &#40;saving their money as they go by sacrificing other pleasures&#41;in order to achieve their desired end--a new home! Couple #2 also wants a lot of money to build a beautiful new home. Couple #2 endeavors to sell cocaine & heroin--saving as they go with sacrafice--in order to achieve their desired end--a new home! Which one do you think is proper for an Orthodox-Christian couple?

Orthodox husbands and wives are called by God to be procreative. All agree. Correct? And, if a good reason warrants the avoidance of pregnancy, then it is valid for a married couple to choose to be non-procreative &#40;abstaining from the marital act&#41;. Never is an Orthodox couple to be ANTI-procreative. Orthodox-Christians believe marriage to be a sacrament instituted by Christ. Orthodox couples exchange marital vows before God and the Church. Furthermore, Orthodox couples are called by God to live their marital life according to God&#39;s design and intention. Hence, if an Orthodox couple engages in the marital act, and is willfully anti-procreative &#40;contracepting&#41;, they are being unfaithful to God. By virtue of an Orthodox marriage, the couple invites God to be Lord of their marital life--including their sexual life. Thus, an Orthodox couple choosing to engage in marital intercourse while contracepting, tells God by their willful intention to frustrate the fertility of the marital act, that He is not Lord of their marital life. Conversely, the NFP practicing Orthodox couple does not breach their faithfulness to God. They simply are not engaging in the marital act. It is <u>not</u> anti-procreative. The NFP couple may have a good reason for avoiding pregnancy. NFP allows a couple to remain faithful to their marital vows, while at the same time providing a valid means to avoid pregnancy without thwarting God&#39;s procreative design. The NFP couple, deciding/discerning before God that they have a legitimate reason to avoid pregnancy, chooses to remain faithful to God by sacrificial abstinence during fertile periods. NFP is not a different form of contraception. It is not contraception at all. After all, contraception is defined as &#34;the intentional prevention of fertiization of an ovum, as by special devices, drugs, etc...&#34; &#40;Webster&#39;s New World College Dictionary, 4th, ed.&#41;. An NFP couple may have a contraceptive mentality/attitude if they are practicing NFP without a valid reason &#40;selfishness&#41;. Yet, they never use contraception.

Finally, over the past few weeks I have quoted Sacred Scripture and Early Church Fathers; called on tradition & history for support; and, utilized philosophy and ordered logic for further support. Can anyone who supports the use of contraception do so with equally authoritative references &#40;i.e. Scripture, the Fathers, etc.&#41;? It is my opinion that the same popular secular society in which we live that tells us that cohabitation, homosexuality, pornography, and other worldly indulgences are morally permissible, also provides the only authority that some people need to contradict the Truth preserved and passed on to us by the Church. I eagerly await your response.

In Christ the Light Bearer,

Michael Casey

[Owen Jones]

Michael,

You&#39;re setting up a straw man argument. I don&#39;t really think you are arguing with pornographers, et al here.

Marriage is, in some sense, allowed for Christians because of our weakness. The higher virtue is celibacy and this is how many Christians have made their most powerful witness. Celibacy and voluntary poverty are the virtues that Christ followed, and that is really our standard. Marriage is blessed and sanctified, but we really have a different doctrine of marriage than the Jews. Our immortality is in heaven, not in our children. This should put some things in their proper perspective in discussions of marriage practice.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Michael,

I found your last post in this thread interesting. However, I felt that it avoided the root question at hand. To this point in the discussion, at any rate, there has been no one standing up and actively defending artificial contraception as embraced by Church tradition. The question has been, rather, on whether &#39;natural family planning&#39; fits into a category where, if one believes that the Fathers forbid contraception, it somehow escapes the same condemnation.

In your last post, you raised the question of means: the &#39;means&#39; of artificial contraception vis-a-vis the &#39;means&#39; of NFP. But the question really isn&#39;t with the means, it is with the matter of intention. What the Fathers objected to in whatever form of &#39;birth control&#39; of which they had knowledge in their day was, as you say, the attempt at thwarting God&#39;s control and design over a marital relationship. They occasionally comment on the means of some &#39;method&#39; that may have been prevalent around them, yet the primary condemnation is not upon the method, but the intent. It is the human will that attempts to control the will of God, in this case via an attempt to have sexual intercourse while &#39;forcing&#39; that act not to be procreative &#40;rather than letting God control such things&#41;, that is forbidden by the Fathers.

In which case, artificial contraception and NFP are no different. Or, at least, I&#39;ve seen no reasonable support to show in what manner they might be. In both cases the couple directly intends to engage in sexual intercourse in such a manner that procreation is avoided. While with contraceptive means this involves an active prevention of the physical processes coming to completion, NFP involves &#39;timing&#39; the sexual act around predictable rhythms in such a way that procreation is avoided. Both &#39;methods&#39; are means of removing the procreative potential from the sexual act, whether &#39;naturally&#39; or otherwise. There is, in fact, very little &#39;natural&#39; about NFP.

The question which keeps recurring is how one reads such quotations as this, already mentioned a few times, by St Clement of Alexandria: &#39;To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature&#39;. Clement does not raise the question of how one goes about having intercourse &#39;other than to procreate children&#39;, because this is not his concern. He is addressing the issue of intent, and seems quite clear on it.

INXC, Matthew

[Stephen Keeler]

Owen wrote:

&#34;Marriage is, in some sense, allowed for Christians because of our weakness.&#34;

In what sense?
and

&#34;The higher virtue is celibacy and this is how many Christians have made their most powerful witness.&#34;

While I can understand this to be a personal opinion, as St. Paul did&#40;but only in linking it to his sense of imminent eschaton&#41;, where is this so noted in a canon of a church council? Or is it just something popularly believed for a time, like the Evil Eye?

[Owen Jones]

I was so flummoxed by your personal putdown, Stephen, that it took me a while to recover before responding. Yes, there was a strong eschatological expectation in the NT Church. Many thought marriage to be irrelevant because of the imminent end of the world. Yet our entire faith is eschatological to this day. And our standard is still Christ himself. And the purpose of this website, afterall, is to illuminate monasticism as the example of the perfected life. Unless and until Christians come to see celibacy and poverty as our standards -- for everyone -- we will be no different than the Rotary Club -- a kind of middle class morality play. That we all do not live up to this standard goes without saying.

But it is hardly a personal opinion to remind ourselves that this is the standard. And as a practical matter, consider what spiritual power there would be in a Church in which all new members had to be converts.

We are to deny self and follow Christ. This cannot be done completely, perfectly, with family responsiblities. Those of us with family responsibilities must have a higher standard to strive for inwardly, and that can only be set by those who have chosen the higher path of celibacy and poverty. That an ORthodox Christian could even question this perhaps is testimony to how far we have sunk. And I say this as someone who believes that the Church needs a &#34;social philosophy&#34; and a &#34;philosophy of history&#34; that has universal application. That presumes families, societal wealth, and so on. But the Church has to make a witness that it is not of this world in order to speak to the world.

Owen Jones

[Moses Anthony]

Much of this discusson I've tried to stay clear of, for the simple reason that "family planning" as per the church fathers isn't something I have any amount of knowledge about.

Although I'm not a monastic, a great deal of the monastic lifestyle appeals to me. Which is why I have an interest in the subject of internalized monasticism. However; if we are to as Owen states, "...illuminate monasticism as the example of the perfected life", what is to be done with the admonition of the Apostle Paul who put before us the example of the relationship of Christ and the Church ,as the perfect standard for husband and wife.
Unless I have missed something over the years, a number of the Lord's disciples/apostles had wives and families, and still attained the crown of martydom and sainthood. Their have an unquestionable testimony. Again unless something has slipped past me over the years, until such a time as "this corruption puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality, and death is swallowed up in life", there will be no one on the face of the Earth that will follow Christ completely, perfectly. Is not this the point of the sacrament of confession, even among monks. Again, the high standard to which I as a "family man" must attain, is the relationship of Christ and the Church. Within that relationship caring for each family member as Christ cared for each one who in faith gives themself up to Him. The statement that such a standard "can only be set by those who have chosen the HIGHER PATH of celibacy and poverty", condemns as useless, the testimonies of families God has used to bring glory to Himself. What's to be done with the instructions of Paul to Timothy concerning the standard for elders and deacons being "husbands of one wife".

The standard set for the Church by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; is the current standard, again unless something has slipped past me, He said "...by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another". It should be quite clear that the witness the Church makes can only be made by not deviating from OBEDIENCE, to the covenant commands and precepts of God (Ps.103, cross reference this with that much quoted passage from 2Chron. 7).

The desert truly became a city; but, not everyone fled to the desert as they heeded the command "...come follow Me".

The word/principle here is, BALANCE! This is something I'm very adamant about! Everyone makes his, hers, and their contribution, with one plowing, one planting, another cultivating and someone else reaping. We are not to be as "the gentiles" lording over one another.

The "philosophy of history and sociality" that the Church needs "...the Lord has shown thee o man what is good and what the Lord requires of thee, to do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God. This is echoed by Isaiah, and in the teaching of Jesus and by the apostles.

Although you have allowed me to make posts, please forgive my ranting.

aus
Moses

[Owen Jones]

Perhaps you believe, Moses, that if you cannot live up to an ideal, that makes you useless. But surely that is flawed logic, to say nothing about the pridefulness of it.

The Orthodox tradition clearly offers monasticism -- celibacy and voluntary poverty -- as the image of perfection. It is the path Christ followed. Surely there can be no doubt about that. And surely there is no doubt that we could all choose that path if we really wanted to be like Him.

This does not condemn married life. As He said, He came into the world not to condemn, but to save.

But it is really typical of both Protestantism and modern secular ideology to say that things are either perfect or no good at all. Orthodoxy is nothing like that.

[M.C. Steenberg]

This thread has seen some interesting discussion over the past days. As usual in discussions of this nature, many topics arise in the course and flow of things. In particular, Owen brought up the following a few days ago:


Marriage is, in some sense, allowed for Christians because of our weakness. The higher virtue is celibacy and this is how many Christians have made their most powerful witness. Celibacy and voluntary poverty are the virtues that Christ followed, and that is really our standard.

This is an interesting point, which does indeed help formulate one's view on the sexual act. As has been noted before in this thread, by myself and others, the context of relationship as a whole, and what marital relationships in particular are meant to be, sets a background to one's consideration of the specific act of intercourse.

The position Owen has put forth is certainly that espoused by the vast majority of the Fathers of the Church, beginning with St Paul and onward into our own day. Paul considered marriage (and with it, therefore, the act of procreation) a blessed estate; though he clearly believed that celibacy was the higher way.

Though, despite the fact that so many of the Fathers put forth this view, there are some Orthodox Fathers which do not. St Irenaeus of Lyons, who has come up elsewhere on these message boards in other discussions, is a prime example of this. In Irenaeus we have a Father who believed that the married life was at least equal to the celibate way, if not indeed a 'higher path'. He argued this point in the face of the 'Gnostics', many of whom believed marriage and all physicality within a relationship to be evil; yet Irenaeus' response in this regard is not wholly polemical. He argues that in the marital relationship the image of God is perfected in the mutual sacrifice of two individuals coming together as one; that in entering into the sacramental life of marriage one realises 'in microcosm' the evangelical and charitable calling of Christ, and emulates in a small way the marriage of Christ to His Church. For Irenaeus, Christ was not an 'unmarried man': He was married, and His bride is the Church. The married life is thus the life of Christ, localised between a husband and a wife.

Fr John Behr, a professor of patristics and currently on the faculty of St Vladimir's Seminary in New York, wrote his doctoral thesis on the comparison (and, in fact, contrast) of the views of asceticism between St Irenaeus and St Clement of Alexandria (Behr, John, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement, Oxford: University Press, 2000). For those who are interested, this study is an excellent and well-written comparison of two Fathers whose views on asceticism are quite contrasting in many ways. Both firmly believed that the ascetic life was necessary: but for Irenaeus this meant, ideally, the fulfilment of the human likeness to Christ in marriage and blessed procreation; for Clement, on the other hand, the ultimate ascetic ideal is the celibate walk.

The important thing to consider, for the purposes of the present discussion, is that both ways are blessed by the Church. Which one is the 'higher' way is, if one looks broadly at the patristic witness, in fact a 'debated' question. In reality, it is not so much a debate as it is a reflection of God's nature as One who acts among men individually: in some cases, as many Fathers reflect, celibacy is the higher way. In others, as other Fathers indicate, the married life is the higher way. Owen and John have both reflected upon the importance of remembering that the goal of the Church, and the intention of God, is to raise souls from corruption to the Kingdom. With regard to this particular issue, God has shown that He provides multiple ways.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Thanks, Mathew, for a learned perspective. I guess my passion on this subject stems from practical considerations, not theological ones. God may bless both paths, but where is the other path today? That&#39;s a practical issue. Without a very dramatic shift in consciousness within the Church, away from a kind of bourgeois religiosity and toward something dramatically different that people can notice and admire as heroic, all of our theological shop talk is mere vanity.

[Moses Anthony]

Owen,
I will try to answer your reply:

(1). No! I do not believe that inability to live up to a standard renders me -or anyone useless. If such a thing were true then none of us would belong to the Lord Jesus Christ.

(2). How many of those among the list of Orthodox saints, were family people. Your statement implies that if one does not choose the path of celibacy and poverty, one does not "really want" to be like Jesus. Careful with your wording.

(3). As Matthew said -and as I implied in the word balance- the Church embraces both the celibate and the married. Both are needed members of the body of Christ(I mean,how do you demystify a mystery).

(4). The world remembers the Jim Jonses, and the Sun Young Moons, and relagates monastics to cloisters safely tucked away from the inquisitive eyes of the hungry public. The OCMC does great work, but they're not monastics in the public eye such as a Mother Teresa. Both of us know of monasteries and sketes, yet their witness is primarily among the "choir"; and so, where is the standard? The world knows Christians primarily as individual believers, and it is these in each of their places where they are placed by Christ Jesus, who as Paul wrote Timothy by their manner of life "...silences the questions of foolish men"

Somewhere there's 7000 who have not bowed the knee to baal; who, whether they be monastics or not, we can in full knowledge of their humanity, look to as examples. Some say "I am a hermit", or "I am a coenibite", or "I am a family member", yet it is God who gives the increase.

The unworthy servant
Moses

(P.S.) Almost forgot, great post Matthew!

[Justin]

Just wanted to make a quick note, if John of Damascus is indeed the man to look to for the overall understanding of the mind of the church &#40;as voiced in earlier fathers&#41;, perhaps his words on Virginity and Marriage in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith &#40;Book 4, 24&#41; would be profitable to read:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-31.htm#P4068_1986418

Am trying to stop in and read often.. great posts..

[Owen Jones]

Dear James,

It&#39;s hard to know how to engage in a conversation that includes Jim Jones and Sun Moon. How did they get in the picture?

The above link to St. John of Damascus is quite helpful on the subject of virginity as a higher virtue than marriage. Unless and until Orthodoxy in America embraces virginity and voluntary poverty as higher virtues, it will remain an empty shell and go the same way as the Episcopalians.

[Moses Anthony]

Owen,

I was puzzled for a moment myself about the reference to Jim Jones, until I re-read my earlier post.

Here is what I was thinking: It is usually only when a "religious" person does something which even the media cannot ignore, that they're remembered. If we were to ask the average Joe Christian, any monastery they would be able to name, would no doubt be Roman Catholic. So, how does an Orhtodox monastery get recognized, not including the "members of the choir", as possessors of a viable standard for life. Beating their own drum would negate a measure of their humility, I would think, and therefore their witness to the community.

At this time while various jurisdictional monasteries write icons, make prayer ropes, operate schools, etc, how much of the Church knows about them, let alone a sin sick world. Even members of the Church probably know more about the Jones, Moons and Bakkers of our society. It was with that in mind that I used the references to Jim Jones and the reverend Moon.

The unworthy servant
Moses

[Owen Jones]

You could say the same about Orthodoxy in general. No one in AMerica really has a clue about Orthodox Christianity, despite the claim &#40;false claim&#41; that there are about 6 million Orthodox in the U.S. &#40;it&#39;s about 10% of that at best.&#41;

Virginity and poverty have fallen on hard times and until the Church revives them as higher virtues the Church will continue on a path of long term historical irrelevancy. Of course, it&#39;s up to the Holy Spirit to inspire us, I should think. He&#39;s been falling down on the job for at lest 500 years now.

[Stephen Keeler]

Owen, first to you, I don&#39;t see how what I said could be construed as a personal putdown, so please don&#39;t take it as one, as none was intended.

Secondly, Orthodoxy does offer fairly wide berth in our paths to salvation at some levels, while at the same time holding up the ideal of the straight and narrow. We can hold opinions that are seemingly incompatible from our human frame of reference, yet not be so; my spiritual father, who happens to be a monk, has ruminated of late on the Heisenberg principle which recognizes that light is both a wave and a particle, but never at the same time when humans analyse it. Go figure.

What Orthodoxy typically does not accept is extremism; thus, I could lean towards the chaste marital state as being no less a state of grace - and maybe even more - than virginity, and you the opposite, and us still be in communion. I defy anyone to prove that it is easier to be more chaste and holy in one state versus another. And Orthodoxy in this country would benefit from both a greater monastic and lay presence. But do not bemoan the weakness of the monastic presence by denigrating the lay, as if it is a zero-sum game and the former only gains at the latter&#39;s expense.

What would be scandalous is if I insist that only my position is the revealed faith of all time, or you yours, and if we created opposing factions to castigate each other, and it built up over the years, and the Church recognized that the Insistence of one position to the exclusion of another was heretical, and so a council might declare &#34;If any man should say that a life spent free from intercourse is the highest state of grace, let him be anathema.&#34;

But in the absense of such a Counciliar declaration, we must rely on other signposts through life. And with skepticism. So when I read St. John supporting virginity as the higher state because immaterial angels are in that state, I think he&#39;s off his rocker a bit here, because the emphasis undermines the blessedness of the created world. But St. John doesn&#39;t make it an arch-emphasis, so it&#39;s ok.

[Justin]

Owen Jones


Of course, it's up to the Holy Spirit to inspire us, I should think. He's been falling down on the job for at lest 500 years now.

Huh?

All,

Can we come to some sort of general agreement here about the original topic? Let me suggest the following, and please tell me where I am wrong...

1. Most (if not all) Fathers thought a primary function of marriage was procreation. Some Fathers would say that if you cannot reproduce, you should not have sexual relations. Other Fathers (such as John Chrysostom) seemed to have a wider view and perhaps thought sexual relations within marriage could take place for other reasons (e.g., to keep one from lusting and fornication).

2. Most (if not all) Fathers said that attempting to prevent or "put off" conception was wrong (unless you were following a Church discipline, like no sexual relations before communion). Some Fathers even called the attempted prevention of contraception murder, and (one would assume) therefore thought the sin on the same level as murder and other such sins. (ie. it's not a "little" sin, which is a controversial concept in itself)

3. The Fathers based their beliefs regarding contraception on the biological principle that a "person" was actually inside the Father until the Father planted the "person" inside the Mother, where he would eventually grow. We know today that things work a bit differently than they thought, and because of this new understanding some Orthodox Priests and Bishops have become more ready to grant permission in using contraception (some granting economy for it's usage to their entire flock).

[Michael Casey]

Justin:

The end can never justify the means to that end. By what authority does a priest or bishop grant permission to a couple to use contraception? What type of contraception are they allowing? The Pill! The pill is an abortifacient. I&#39;m sure they do not have the spiritual jurisdiction to license the use of a chemical contraceptive that causes an abortion. Read the &#34;pill&#34; instruction sheet or ask your local pharmacist for that information.

The use of a condom contradicts Sacred Scripture. If the &#34;spilling of seed&#34; is now considered morally permissible, I would like to know by what authority. Again, it is immoral for a husdand and/or wife to willfully frustrate a potentially fruitful marital act. On the other hand, NFP is not contraceptive.

Finally, if a priest or bishop does allow a married couple to suspend having children for a serious reason, why would they permit contraception? Matthew argued that both contraception and NFP have the same end--the prevention of conception. Yet, it is clear that the means to that end are substantially different when comparing NFP to contraception. Wouldn&#39;t you think that a priest or a bishop would guide a couple to use Natural Family Planning as opposed to an abortifacient, &#34;spilling seed&#34;, and/or any other form of contraception that deliberately blocks the procreative power inherent with the marital act?

In Christ the Light Giver,

Michael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear in the Lord, Michael,

While I appreciate your last post, I would like to refrain for the time being from the discussion of whether the economy employed by the Church might &#39;prefer&#39; NFP to other means of contraception. I think this is an interesting issue, but we have not yet concluded the previous.

I am still anxious to know how you might respond to the many previous posts regarding intention &#40;e.g. my own, found here (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=71&post=1259#POST1259)&#41;. You keep turning to the discussion of means; and to that end, on its own, I think that many here are in agreement &#40;i.e. that there is some difference between &#39;artificial&#39; contraceptive methods, and certainly anything abortative, and the methods of NFP&#41;.

But prior to this remains the question of intention. I would like to address this before we tackle &#39;means&#39; per se. Several patristic quotations already posted to this thread, some by you, have shown that engagement in the sexual act with the intention of preventing procreation from taking place is sinful and counter to the will of God. Other quotations have shown that this is not the unanymous voice of the Fathers: some &#40;e.g. John Chrysostom, the author of the Song of Solomon, Irenaeus of Lyons&#41; have had somewhat different views.

Yet those Fathers who spoke specifically against &#39;contraception&#39; did so as an injunction against misused and passionate intention.To thwart the control of God over the sexual act is to set up oneself against the divine. This is the root sin of &#39;contraception&#39; as the Fathers wrote against it. The means by which this thwarting is achieved is secondary: some of the Fathers speak of physical &#39;barriers&#39;, others of chemicals, others of various non-&#39;artificial&#39; means &#40;e.g. termination of the sexual act before ejaculation&#41;. In general, the Fathers wrote against whatever &#39;methods&#39; happened to be &#39;in vogue&#39; in the culture around them -- but always with the same motivation: the means are only a reflection of the intention. Some &#39;means&#39; are more heinous than others &#40;abortative &#39;contraception&#39;, as murder, is certainly more heinous than NFP&#41;; but all engagement in the sexual act which begins with the intention to prevent the possibility of procreation goes against the root injunction of the Fathers who speak out against contraception.

So perhaps it is time to state the question bluntly: if you are going to take a stand that is both &#40;a&#41; anti-&#39;contraception&#39;, based on the prohibitions of the Fathers; and &#40;b&#41; pro-NFP, can you offer a single quotation from the Fathers that might justify the practices of NFP without being taken in such narrow extraction that it loses sight of the Fathers&#39; &#40;or a given Father&#39;s&#41; overriding prohibition against intending to engage in the sexual act while preventing the possibility of procreation? In other words, can you provide a patristic quotation that supports the practice deliberately avoiding the procreative potential in the sexual act?

INXC, Matthew

[Justin]

Michael,


By what authority does a priest or bishop grant permission to a couple to use contraception?

God, I think. If the canons and principles and traditions of the Church are medicine for the healing of our souls and bodies, and the doctor diagnoses that the medicine will make the condition of the patient worse, cannot the doctor refrain from giving the person the medicine? The Church is designed to guide us to salvation, if the norms are going to do the opposite and hender our salvation, then they can be bent. Call it a dispensation, call it economia, it doesn't really matter; Moses was allowed to do it because of the hardness of his people's hearts. God's morality is absolute, how close we come to that morality changes from person to person (and culture to culture). Ignatius said that wherever the bishop was, there is Christ. (obviously a Paraphrase) There is my answer, given by Saint Ignatius , as to where he gets his authority, http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif


What type of contraception are they allowing? The Pill! The pill is an abortifacient. I'm sure they do not have the spiritual jurisdiction to license the use of a chemical contraceptive that causes an abortion.

I would agree that they don't have such allowance, though I don't know any hierarchs who have allowed those methods which essentially terminate the child.


Again, it is immoral for a husdand and/or wife to willfully frustrate a potentially fruitful marital act. On the other hand, NFP is not contraceptive.

Isn't the whole point of NFP to have a great degree of assurance that two people can have sex and not have to worry about the person getting pregnant? What other possible reason is there to use NFP except that it is wished for conception to be avoided? I hope you will not think it improper to use a fake dialogue to illustrate this:

Justin: You don't use contraception?
Catholic: No.
Justin: Why?
Catholic: God said that we are to "Be fruitful and multiply," and the Catholic Church teaches that sexual acts must allow for the possibility of procreation.
Justin: Do you use NFP?
Catholic: Yes, but NFP isn't contraception.
Justin: What is the purpose of NFP? Why use it?
Catholic: We use NFP to formulate what times my wife and I can have sex without the chance of her getting pregnant.
Justin: So the goal in mind is to avoid conception? If that's not the goal, then what is the purpose of it?
Catholic: ... . .

Well, the Catholic probably wouldn't have stopped there, we probably would have went on. But IMO that's all the further we need go. Friend, if avoidance of conception is an immoral goal as you assert, then is not usage of NFP to avoid conception immoral? If it is permissable, then why?

Your last set of questions deserve much thought, please don't take my not touching upon them here as a sign that I am not considering what you said.

I'd like to thank Silouan's Namesake for brining to my attention the essay written by Father Paul. D. Callaghan; it was very helpful.

[sinjin smithe]

This is an interesting debate..however as someone who is not married and a virgin..let me ask what is the role of sex in marriage? Is it soley for procreation or is it also for bonding between husband and wife? I don&#39;t believe that sex is for procreation only..I believe also that it is for bonding between husband and wife. Sex was created by God. Look in the Bible, the Song of Solomon is about sex between husband and wife. If God solely intended sex to be about procreation then why is there a book in the Bible that talks entirely about it?

[M.C. Steenberg]

In response to Sinjin's recent post to this thread, on the question of what role sexual activity is meant to have within the blessed sacrament of marriage as instituted by God, I might refresh some memories by providing a pointer to John Wehling's post much earlier in this thread, wherein he posted a lengthy quotation by St John Chrysostom that provides one of the patristic examples of sexual activity being proclaimed as something which has a holy value beyond that of the purely procreative.

INXC, Matthew

[sinjin smithe]

Thank you Matthew. However I know that the church has married saints and I am curious as to what they have to say on marriage and sexuality instead of quoting those who live in singleness.

[Justin]

During the course of this thread, two patristic passages were alluded to:

&#34;St. Basil says that those women that will not want to have children due to illness should live in abstinence.&#34; - by Vlad

&#34;He [Irenaeus] argues that in the marital relationship the image of God is perfected in the mutual sacrifice of two individuals coming together as one; that in entering into the sacramental life of marriage one realises &#39;in microcosm&#39; the evangelical and charitable calling of Christ, and emulates in a small way the marriage of Christ to His Church.&#34; - by Matthew

I was wondering if either of you two gentleman knew the exact addresses for what you mentioned? http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Justin

[Dave]

Since we haven&#39;t heard anything from Michael Casey since Matthew asked him to provide a quotation that matched his criterias, are we to assume he cannot?

Dave

[Cornelius]

Hi everybody. I&#39;ve read through these discussions on birth control and contraception and I found them really interesting. But I wonder... is there any kind of &#34;Official&#34; statement about these things that&#39;s been made by one of the jurisdictions or patriarchs?

Thanks

[C. Christoph]

Regarding a secondary "intent" (other than the sole intent of procreation), I am surprised nobody here has quoted St. Paul from Corinthians I (7,5): "come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency", as a valid ('Oikonomic' - for our weakness) intent.
Especially since 'Oikonomia' on these matters is often compulsory, for example: when only the one of the two involved is actually willing to 'only ever have intercourse for procreation' and we are commanded, "defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent"

Now as far as that beautiful quote by St. Irenaeus goes, I think it is one against thousands (from the overwhelming majority of the Fathers) essentially agreeing that: being 'married to the Lord' (being a monastic) is imeasurably superior to being 'married', even though both these roads can ofcourse lead to truly and eternally becoming one with Him, as well as just allowing us to remain governed by that other most horrible god - the Ego.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Regarding a secondary "intent" (other than the sole intent of procreation), I am surprised nobody here has quoted St. Paul from Corinthians I (7,5): "come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency", as a valid ('Oikonomic' - for our weakness) intent.
Especially since 'Oikonomia' on these matters is often compulsory, for example: when only the one of the two involved is actually willing to 'only ever have intercourse for procreation' and we are commanded, "defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent"

Now as far as that beautiful quote by St. Irenaeus goes, I think it is one against thousands (from the overwhelming majority of the Fathers) essentially agreeing that: being 'married to the Lord' (being a monastic) is imeasurably superior to being 'married', even though both these roads can ofcourse lead to truly and eternally becoming one with Him, as well as just allowing us to remain governed by that other most horrible god - the Ego.

Christopher, there is also an "anathema" for all who criticize those who have decided that the married path is right for them.

Both celibacy and an active sexual life are right as long as no-one from either group begins to think that he or she is superior to someone from the other group.

We have discussed this "anathema" in the past.

"The heretical rejection of marriage was condemned in the Canons of the Holy Apostles.

The 51st Canon states: "If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or meat, or wine, not as a matter of mortification, but out of an abhorrence thereof, forgetting that all things are exceedingly good, and that God made man male and female, and blasphemously misrepresenting God’s work of creation, either let him mend his ways or let him be deposed from office and expelled from the church. Let a layman be treated similarly."

The 1st Canon of the Council of Gangra states: "If anyone disparages marriage, or abominates or disparages a woman sleeping with her husband, notwithstanding that she is faithful and reverent, as though she could not enter the Kingdom, let him be anathema ." Further, in the 14th and 10th Canons, "If any woman should abandon her husband and wish to depart, because she abominates marriage, let her be anathema [I]and should a celibate exalt himself over one who is married, let him be anathema"

The 5th Canon proclaims: "No Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon shall put away his own wife under pretext of reverence. If, however, he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists in so doing, let him be deposed from office."

http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/homilies/e_0109a.htm

I think it is clear that whatever God decides for you is right, be it celibacy or married life.

Effie

[C. Christoph]

Christopher, there is also an "anathema" for all who criticize those who have decided that the married path is right for them.

Both celibacy and an active sexual life are right as long as no-one from either group begins to think that he or she is superior to someone from the other group.

We have discussed this "anathema" in the past.

"The heretical rejection of marriage was condemned in the Canons of the Holy Apostles.

The 51st Canon states: "If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or meat, or wine, not as a matter of mortification, but out of an abhorrence thereof, forgetting that all things are exceedingly good, and that God made man male and female, and blasphemously misrepresenting God’s work of creation, either let him mend his ways or let him be deposed from office and expelled from the church. Let a layman be treated similarly."

The 1st Canon of the Council of Gangra states: "If anyone disparages marriage, or abominates or disparages a woman sleeping with her husband, notwithstanding that she is faithful and reverent, as though she could not enter the Kingdom, let him be anathema ." Further, in the 14th and 10th Canons, "If any woman should abandon her husband and wish to depart, because she abominates marriage, let her be anathema [I]and should a celibate exalt himself over one who is married, let him be anathema"

The 5th Canon proclaims: "No Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon shall put away his own wife under pretext of reverence. If, however, he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists in so doing, let him be deposed from office."

http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/homilies/e_0109a.htm

I think it is clear that whatever God decides for you is right, be it celibacy or married life.

Effie

Yes definitely, ofcourse, there is no question or confusion about it! and never any critisism of any of the two paths...

If you have access to St.John Chrysostom's homily "on Virginity" you can see how he explains the paradox of the imeasurable greatness of celibacy as compared to marriage without belittling marriage at all...

[Kusanagi]

took this from a Romanian site it also mentions in part about abortion.

From the Letter to Diognetus

(speaking of what distinguishes Christians from pagans):

"They marry, as do all others; they beget children but they do not destroy their offspring" (literally 'cast away fetuses').

From the Didache

"You shall not slay the child by abortions".

From the Letter of Barnabus

"You shall not destroy your conceptions before they are brought forth; nor kill them after they are born".

From St. Clement

"Those who use abortificants commit homicide".

From Tertullian

"The mold in the womb may not be destroyed".

From St. Basil the Great

"The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. The hair-splitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us".

From St. Augustine

"Sometimes their sadistic licentiousness goes so far that they procure poison to produce infertility, and when this is of no avail, they find one means or another to destroy the unborn and flush it from the mother's womb. For they desire to see their offspring perish before it is alive or, if it has already been granted life, they seek to kill it within the mother's body before it is born".

From St. John Chrysostom

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit? Where there are medicines of sterility? Where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. Indeed, it is something worse than murder and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gifts of God, and fight with His laws? What is a curse you seek as though it were a blessing. Do you make the anteroom of slaughter? Do you teach the women who are given to you for a procreation of offspring to perpetuate killing?"

Canon XCI of the Orthodox Church

As for women who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortions, and those who take fetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to penalty for murderers.

Canon II of the Orthodox Church

"A woman who aborts deliberately is liable to trial as a murderess. This is not a precise assertion of some figurative and inexpressible conception that passes current among us. For here there is involved the queston of providing for the infants to be born, but also for the woman who has plotted against her own self. For in most cases the women die in the course of such operations, But besides this there is to be noted the fact that the destruction of the embryo constitutes another murder.... It behooves us, however, not to extend their confessions to the extreme limit of death, but to admit them at the end of the moderate period of ten years, without specifying a definite time, but adjusting the cure to the manner of penitence".

Canon XXI of the Orthodox Church

"Regarding women who become prostitutes and kill their babies, and who make it their business to concoct abortives, the former rule barred them for life from communion, and they are left without resource. But having found a more philanthropic alternative, we have fixed the penalty at ten years, in accordance with the fixed degrees...".

"As for women who destroy embryos professionally, and those (non-prostitutes) who give or take poisons with the object of aborting babies and dropping them prematurely, we prescribe the rule that they, by economy, be treated up to five years at most".

[Jonathan Hayward]

I am surprised in this forum that a search for "Zaphiris" turns up nothing.

Zaphiris was the author of a 1970's article on contraception that appears to have been taken as the Orthodox Church's teaching on contraception. That this may be so, is cause from concern.

To quote the opening of Orthodoxy, Contraception, and Spin Doctoring: A Look at an Influential and Disturbing Article (http://jonathanscorner.com/contraception/):

The reason for writing: "Buried treasure?"

Computer programmers often need to understand why programs behave as they do, and there are times when one is trying to explain a puzzle by understanding the source, and meets an arresting surprise. Programmer slang for this is "buried treasure," politely defined as,

A surprising piece of code found in some program. While usually not wrong, it tends to vary from crufty (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/c/crufty.html) to bletcherous (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/b/bletcherous.html), and has lain undiscovered only because it was functionally correct, however horrible it is. Used sarcastically, because what is found is anything *but* treasure. Buried treasure almost always needs to be dug up and removed. 'I just found that the scheduler sorts its queue using bubble sort (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/b/bubblesort.html)! Buried treasure!'"1 (source (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/b/buriedtreasure.html))
What I have found has me wondering if I've discovered theological "buried treasure," that may actually be wrong. Although my analysis is not exhaustive, I have tried to provide two documents that relate to the (possible) "buried treasure:" one treating the specific issue, contraception, in patristic and modern times, and one commentary on the document I have found that may qualify as "buried treasure."
If you haven't heard of Zaphiris, Orthodoxy, Contraception, and Spin Doctoring: A Look at an Influential and Disturbing Article (http://jonathanscorner.com/contraception/) includes the full text of his article with comments. Zaphiris's article may be worth being "dug up and removed".

Christos Jonathan

[Evan]

Can one find an instance of permissive treatment of active contraception among the Fathers? I am somewhat surprised by this consensus on the subject-- not trying to pick a fight, only observing that the passages from Chrysostom cited earlier don't seem to endorse contraception per se, only sexual intimacy among people who can't conceive. I think there's a distinction between a couple that enjoys sexual intimacy but deliberately avoids conceiving, despite being capable of doing so, and a couple that can't conceive, but engages in sexual intimacy anyway. I wonder if the Fathers have spoken to it?

[Christophoros]

Forgive my ignorance, but in early patristic times (say, the first thousand years of Christianity), how many forms of true contraception - distinct from abortion inducing techniques - were there? All I can think of is coitus interruptus.

[Evan]

But I'm holding out hope that somebody, somewhere had the notion that contraception was possible, and that one of the Fathers might have addressed the question directly. Or at least one of the saints in a later era.

Chrysostom certainly seems to endorse the notion that there is more to sexual intercourse between married people than simple utilitarian baby-making. But I think there's something else at stake where a couple is intentionally avoiding the creation of life.

[L. Allen]

Forgive my ignorance, but in early patristic times (say, the first thousand years of Christianity), how many forms of true contraception - distinct from abortion inducing techniques - were there? All I can think of is coitus interruptus.

Well, breastfeeding a child is a not-very-effective means of making conception less likely. Various kinds of primitive barrier methods are thought to have been known in very early societies, but again, I don't suppose they were that effective, since people haven't always understood the biological processes well. (Many people have thought that when a woman menstruates, she is fertile, when of course the opposite is the case). Theologically, if the intent to prevent a pregnancy is crucial, then the effectiveness of the methods used should be irrelevant, but in practical terms, I suspect it makes us think differently about these things when we know we have near-infallible means of contraception available to us.

I was discussing this topic amongst friends recently, and we wondered whether the safety of the mother may have influenced the Church Fathers? After all, bearing many children frequently would be a great strain. On the question of abortion, it is generally true that it is almost impossible to procure abortion without almost killing the mother, except with modern techniques. Abortion would therefore be doubly a sin, since in earlier times those who attempted it risked their own lives.

[Jonathan Hayward]

Can one find an instance of permissive treatment of active contraception among the Fathers? I am somewhat surprised by this consensus on the subject-- not trying to pick a fight, only observing that the passages from Chrysostom cited earlier don't seem to endorse contraception per se, only sexual intimacy among people who can't conceive. I think there's a distinction between a couple that enjoys sexual intimacy but deliberately avoids conceiving, despite being capable of doing so, and a couple that can't conceive, but engages in sexual intimacy anyway. I wonder if the Fathers have spoken to it?
The Catholic author John Noonan's Contraception, for Orthodox who are willing to read a Catholic author, is a magisterial study not to be ignored as, to draw an overblown analogy, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is not to be ignored if you want to understand the vocabulary of the New Testament.

Probably more than the first half treats things that concern Orthodox, and any complaints about him reading the Fathers through Western eyes should wait until after seeing how many things he has brought together in terms of an analysis of ancient sources, beginning in pre-Christian Judaism and continuing to Christian views including Christianity's countercultural welcome to celibacy that was surprisingly warm to not generating children. I know I'm taking on a liability by citing a Catholic here, and there are things in the text I'd critique, but he's worth reading for the footnotes and quotations if nothing else.

Christos Jonathan

[Jonathan Hayward]

Forgive my ignorance, but in early patristic times (say, the first thousand years of Christianity), how many forms of true contraception - distinct from abortion inducing techniques - were there? All I can think of is coitus interruptus.
According to Noonan's sources, five basic forms of contraception (barrier method, being creative about which orifices to use, etc.) were known to the pre-Christian ancient world, and he quotes the Fathers saying things that show they knew clearly the conceptual distinction between an abortefascient and a contraception. Ancient barrier contraception was nowhere near so unobtrusive as the smoothest condom modern plastics will allow, but it was a clearly established practice, and modern barrier techniques are distinguished by considerable advances in engineering but not by inventing the basic principle, which was well established in ancient times.

Christos Jonathan

[Jonathan Hayward]

But I'm holding out hope that somebody, somewhere had the notion that contraception was possible, and that one of the Fathers might have addressed the question directly. Or at least one of the saints in a later era.

Chrysostom certainly seems to endorse the notion that there is more to sexual intercourse between married people than simple utilitarian baby-making. But I think there's something else at stake where a couple is intentionally avoiding the creation of life.
I agree and would like to push one thing further.

Good as such is multifaceted in that there are multiple goods that come from friendship, or ascetical practices such as fasting, or work, or almost anything else that is truly good. It would be extremely surprising if the only good of intercourse in any sense was its fertility. And it would be surprising if e.g. Chrysostom could see no other good in that expression of love... but there is something very significant about trying to frustrate one of the goods of sex, as for that matter it would be wrong to say, "Now that we have ways of conceiving a child without that expression of love, we should have children only by laboratory means and jettison the expression of love." (That would be alarming!)

Christos Jonathan

[L. Allen]

I agree and would like to push one thing further.

Good as such is multifaceted in that there are multiple goods that come from friendship, or ascetical practices such as fasting, or work, or almost anything else that is truly good. It would be extremely surprising if the only good of intercourse in any sense was its fertility. And it would be surprising if e.g. Chrysostom could see no other good in that expression of love... but there is something very significant about trying to frustrate one of the goods of sex, as for that matter it would be wrong to say, "Now that we have ways of conceiving a child without that expression of love, we should have children only by laboratory means and jettison the expression of love." (That would be alarming!)

Christos Jonathan

Yes, the last point is very thought-provoking! I do not know, and perhaps someone who has studied can help me, but it seems plausible to me that the early Fathers simply did not imagine our modern situations - and that's not so surprising, since there are plenty of elderly people who remember well when there was really no such this as contraception for most ordinary people.

[Jonathan Hayward]

Yes, the last point is very thought-provoking!... but it seems plausible to me that the early Fathers simply did not imagine our modern situations - and that's not so surprising, since there are plenty of elderly people who remember well when there was really no such this as contraception for most ordinary people.
Thank you. I think that the text I italicized is quite important.

There was a class taught by the kind of Catholic by whom I very much do not want to judge my Catholic friends--a sort of "Monty Python" revised version of Catholicism, in this case a Catholic priest who was bisexual and active in LGBTQ advocacy.

He was discussing Wittgenstein's "forms of life" which I would describe as a major tenet of how life is lived that is so deeply a part of you that it is hard to even see. Someone asked him for an example of a "form of life" (a bit of a taller order than asking him to point out something obvious to people in our day), and after thinking a bit, he said, It used to be that having children was seen as something necessary to human flourishing. Now the shift is towards believing that controlling having children is necessary to human flourishing.

Such a statement might be significant if a conservative said it, but it is all the more significant from someone who wouldn't touch traditional Roman teaching on questions like these with a ten foot pole.

We have in many ways been shifting from situations where the Father's teaching is rejected to situations where the Father's teaching is not really rejected because it is not imaginable enough to reject. I wrote Technonomicon (http://jonathanscorner.com/technonomicon/) to explain these things and situate contraception with ascetical living and modern trends; the basic issue is one I consider very important. (And, on a shorter and more accessible level, I tried to explain things in Our Crown of Thorns (http://jonathanscorner.com/crown/).

Christos Jonathan

P.S. There are some rules that are hard enough to obey when you see how they make sense. Fighting gluttony, pride, or lust is hard enough of a fight when you know very well that you don't want the consequences of giving in. But losing touch with the rhyme and reason for a prohibition unveils a whole new level of difficulty, and contraception is one of those things whose rhyme or reason many have lost touch with. It's easy to say "sex is good" (and assume the goodness is first and foremost in the pleasure it allows), with contraception apparently unlocking more of the goodness with less unappetizing consequences. It's easy to see "Every Sperm is Sacred" as a well-deserved lampoon of a ridiculous ancient proposition. Seeing a way to have more sex while preserving a yuppie lifestyle as not an improvement to human flourishing is now some distance from being a prohibition with a rhyme and reason that are in easy reach. And that makes it much harder; the links above are to works intended to manifest the rhyme or reason much more than simply underscoring the ancient rule.

[Jonathan Hayward]

Can one find an instance of permissive treatment of active contraception among the Fathers? I am somewhat surprised by this consensus on the subject-- not trying to pick a fight, only observing that the passages from Chrysostom cited earlier don't seem to endorse contraception per se, only sexual intimacy among people who can't conceive. I think there's a distinction between a couple that enjoys sexual intimacy but deliberately avoids conceiving, despite being capable of doing so, and a couple that can't conceive, but engages in sexual intimacy anyway. I wonder if the Fathers have spoken to it?
Let me respond with a couple of other points that put this in sharper relief.

People are big today on "sex is good", Christians included: this is what opens Foucault's Will to Knowledge, the last volume of his sexual history. People affirm the goodness of sex, and the only conceivable meaning to many is that sex is good as a pleasurable experience. And Foucault wrote before I first had waves of spam telling me I'm not man enough for a relationship with a real woman and must content myself with pixels on a screen--and then later spam clarifies that my life has no meaning if I don't have megadoses of "male enhancement." And spam can be pretty unsavory, but commercials in more respectable media, and pharmacies and the like, consistently beat the same drum: "The true meaning of life is unlocked by V1@gr*!"

Such was not the perspective of the Fathers; such was not even the perspective of pagans whom Foucault clarifies did not live in a "sunny Eden of the unrepressed": Foucault balances a world where women, slaves, and boys were fair game to men by quoting a disciple asking a pagan philosopher, "How often should I have sex?" and the philosopher answering, "As often as you want to deplete your energy." They allowed things Christians condemn but would have rather skeptical eyes for what conservative Christians allow.

But enough partial digressions.

The Fathers allowed sex between husband and wife, but there was not a sense of "have this pleasure as often as you like": if sex was allowed during the infertile period, it was allowed despite the fact that it was in a certain sense futile: and even then it was viewed with suspicion. The author I cited, apparently after a life's work studying contraception largely in relation to the Fathers, quoted one Father who grudgingly allowed sex during pregnancy on the premise that it might prevent worse evils, and the scholar commented that this was the only figure he had found in the Church's first five hundred years who painted sex during pregnancy as in any sense licit. (Mention was made of philosophers whom Christians listened to who said, "Even the animals don't do this!") There may be a sense that sex has other goods besides its fecundity. There is no sense that its primary good is pleasure, and those who allow sex under conditions where it is known that it will be infertile see something more like a necessary evil than a positive good.

My most recent reading in the Fathers has been St. Maximus Confessor's fifth century on various texts, in which he presents pleasure in almost unambiguously dark tones and says it is much worse than unhelpful. He may bless procreation, but his overall teaching is that human procreation through sex is a Plan B backup, apparently allowed for in our creation but never intended; God did intend for Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply", but the intended mechanism was multiplication as angels multiply, a mechanism that we cannot see: had mankind never fallen, we would have been fruitful and multiplied without the help of sex. (One modern author, introducing this, said, in essence, "I know this sounds really strange, but St. Maximus has thought this through very carefully.")

Which may be, I would imagine, a starker position than that of St. John Chrysostom, and not the only position patristic Orthodoxy might take today.

However, it is hard to affirm this, or be very cautious about allowing sex at all when it is known that it cannot be fertile, and allow active contraception.

Christos Jonathan

[Eric Peterson]

Isn't it true that the only 100 percent effective form of birth control is abstinence? I mean, even with a barren wife, conception is still possible, and couples still try. (I don't know. Maybe Sts. Joachim and Anna and Sts. Zacharias and Elizabeth did not attempt to conceive at all until they were told by an angel that God would give them a child, but I'm sure that, perhaps, other cases could be found. I could be wrong. I seem to remember Fr. John Krestiankin writing that, according to church rules, those known to be infertile could not marry, but he lists many obscure rules and his book has no footnotes, unfortunately. I could be wrong, but I think the best solution, instead of a blanket statment or clinical argument is a consultation with a good and experienced spiritual father, together with prayer and a self-examination of one's motives and conscience.) All things are possible with God. So, I think it depends more on the intention--that a couple be willing to accept the children God gives them for their salvation, since children are a gift from God and bad things happen to those who reject divine gifts.

[Paul Cowan]

I seem to remember Fr. John Krestiankin writing that, according to church rules, those known to be infertile could not marry,

ummm, how would someone know they were infertile until they tried to get pregnant and assuming they were chaste until marriage? Or even assuming they were not chaste before marriage and just considered themselves "lucky" up until they got checked out by a doctor. I don't think people go to an infertility doctor until they have tried a few times and were repeatedly unsuccessful. Again, after they were married...

I heard a doctor tell a story; the mother asked what kind of birth control to put her teenage daughter on. (she was also in the room) the doctor gave her an aspirin. They both looked at her like she was crazy until the doctor told her to put it between her knees and don't let it fall.

Paul

[Jonathan Hayward]

ummm, how would someone know they were infertile until they tried to get pregnant and assuming they were chaste until marriage?
I remember a friend saying, as a positive note about the Puritans, that many of them got married three/four/five times. I was puzzled until he clarified something about high mortality and outliving one's spouse.

In the modern world, with modern medicine, a couple who marries around the age of twenty and avoids divorce stands a good chance of growing old together with neither of them dying until over seventy. Such was far from true in patristic times. Mortality was high and a young couple who married, in the words of the modern wedding vow, "until death do us part", might be parted by death well within a decade. For that matter, someone aged thirty or forty was considered fairly old!

Even if some saints did live to a very ripe age.

Christos Jonathan

[Jonathan Hayward]

I could be wrong, but I think the best solution, instead of a blanket statment or clinical argument is a consultation with a good and experienced spiritual father, together with prayer and a self-examination of one's motives and conscience.
This places contraception alongside such things as priestly ordination, marriage, and monasticism as things one should enter carefully and are not for everyone but should never receive blanket condemnation, and not alongside things like adultery and bitter rage where a good spiritual father will only see one evaluation. In other words, you have decided the question already: contraception is given a blanket status of permissible if done rightly.

Christos Jonathan

[Eric Peterson]

Actually, Jonathan, I was referring in the case you cited above, neither to contraception nor to natural family planning (with the same impetus as contraception), but to marital relations in cases where infertility is known. If the other side is fornication or divorce then it is a matter for a spiritual father. I am not a spiritual father, nor am I married, nor do I feel qualified to distill the writings of the Fathers on this topic. Please do not put me in a category where I do not belong, Jonathan, as I did not speak of contraception. Thanks.

[Jonathan Hayward]

Actually, Jonathan, I was referring in the case you cited above, neither to contraception nor to natural family planning (with the same impetus as contraception), but to marital relations in cases where infertility is known. If the other side is fornication or divorce then it is a matter for a spiritual father. I am not a spiritual father, nor am I married, nor do I feel qualified to distill the writings of the Fathers on this topic. Please do not put me in a category where I do not belong, Jonathan, as I did not speak of contraception. Thanks.
I'm sorry; I read your post, and after that first reading (and a rereading just now) it did/does not leap out of that note that you were discussing only marriage of the infertile, and not broader discussion one might associate with asking what is 100% effective contraception. I do want to read fairly; I didn't understand you as well as I wanted to.

[Clarification later: I've thought a bit more and I think I see how I should have read your post.]

Christos Jonathan

[Jonathan Hayward]

[Clarification later: I've thought a bit more and I think I see how I should have read your post.]
And I regret moving on with my original reading.

Christos Jonathan

[Evan]

According to Noonan's sources, five basic forms of contraception (barrier method, being creative about which orifices to use, etc.) were known to the pre-Christian ancient world, and he quotes the Fathers saying things that show they knew clearly the conceptual distinction between an abortefascient and a contraception. Ancient barrier contraception was nowhere near so unobtrusive as the smoothest condom modern plastics will allow, but it was a clearly established practice, and modern barrier techniques are distinguished by considerable advances in engineering but not by inventing the basic principle, which was well established in ancient times.

Christos Jonathan


Interesting. Noonan's actually a federal circuit court judge. Very much a liberal Catholic (he's on the Ninth Circuit, which is notoriously liberal-- it includes California, so that goes with the territory).

What were his findings? If the Fathers made a distinction between different kinds of contraception, what did they make of that distinction? I still think saying that there's more to sex than baby-making is to skirt the issue when the couple is fertile and deliberately avoiding procreation.

And for the record, no, I don't think the "rhythm" method solves the problem. As has been pointed out, it is a distinction without a difference when you have the same contraceptive purpose.

[L. Allen]

Isn't it true that the only 100 percent effective form of birth control is abstinence? I mean, even with a barren wife, conception is still possible, and couples still try. (I don't know. Maybe Sts. Joachim and Anna and Sts. Zacharias and Elizabeth did not attempt to conceive at all until they were told by an angel that God would give them a child, but I'm sure that, perhaps, other cases could be found. I could be wrong. I seem to remember Fr. John Krestiankin writing that, according to church rules, those known to be infertile could not marry, but he lists many obscure rules and his book has no footnotes, unfortunately. I could be wrong, but I think the best solution, instead of a blanket statment or clinical argument is a consultation with a good and experienced spiritual father, together with prayer and a self-examination of one's motives and conscience.) All things are possible with God. So, I think it depends more on the intention--that a couple be willing to accept the children God gives them for their salvation, since children are a gift from God and bad things happen to those who reject divine gifts.

Well, even modern science can be wrong when it says people are barren. It's not as it's an immutable state, and I always understood the example of Elizabeth as being a reminder that we can think we've been overlooked, but we don't know what God has in plan for us. There's something very human about the wording of the gospel - 'she who was thought barren is now in her sixth month' - which I find very poignant. I don't see how you could tell whether a couple were destined to be barren, so how could you advise them to abstain? Or am I missing something?

[Jonathan Hayward]

In my old parish, I knew at least one little boy who was conceived after his parents prayed before an icon of St. Anna that had been passed around by previously childless couples who had conceived.

Christos Jonathan

[Jonathan Hayward]

Interesting. Noonan's actually a federal circuit court judge. Very much a liberal Catholic (he's on the Ninth Circuit, which is notoriously liberal-- it includes California, so that goes with the territory).
I don't think we're talking about the same John Noonan. This John Thomas Noonan wrote his book in 1967 and I assume he lived as a professor at a university or seminary; a not-terribly-informative link for his book (but one where you can buy it) is at Amazon.com: Contraception ; a history of its treatment by the Catholic theologians and canon: John Thomas Noonan: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Contraception-history-treatment-Catholic-theologians/dp/B001KR7CJO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246021206&sr=8-1)

In my own experience reading a number of liberal Catholic theology texts and interacting with liberals at a Catholic university, I've seen almost invariably shady argument and rhetoric, and as far as positions go, the Vatican's blanket condemnation of birth control pills is relativized/ridiculed/qualified/contradicted whenever they take a position on the matter; I have never read or heard a Catholic liberal show sympathy to Rome's blanket disallowance of birth control.

Regarding where John (Thomas) Noonan stood, this may not be the whole picture but relatively early on he quotes St. Augustine; the same basic text in NPNF is:
Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit.Not to put too fine a point on it, but St. Augustine's assessment of Natural Family Banning ends with a reference to the blistering words of I Tim 4:
Now, the Spirit expressly says that in the last days some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons through the hypocrisy of liars whose conscience is seared by a hot iron. They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth...
Noonan does not draw out this quotation from St. Paul, but he follows the quotation from St. Augustine by saying,
In the history of the thought of theologians on contraception, it is, no doubt, piquant that the first pronouncement on contraception by the most influential theologian teaching on such matters should be such a vigorous attack on the one method of avoiding procreation accepted by twentieth-century Catholic theologians as morally lawful. [p. 120]
Noonan is basically a conservative, and a straight shooter. Even if I disagree with some of his final assessments. He is decisively not a California-themed "Catholic".

Christos Jonathan

[Evan]

I don't think we're talking about the same John Noonan. This John Thomas Noonan wrote his book in 1967 and I assume he lived as a professor at a university or seminary; a not-terribly-informative link for his book (but one where you can buy it) is at Amazon.com: Contraception ; a history of its treatment by the Catholic theologians and canon: John Thomas Noonan: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Contraception-history-treatment-Catholic-theologians/dp/B001KR7CJO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246021206&sr=8-1)


No, I've got the right one. He accepted the Laterae Medal in place of Mary Ann Glendon (who refused it because of Notre Dame's conferrence of an honorary degree on President Obama.) He's been around a while-- hence the early date of the book.

He's a political liberal, so I imagined he would be liberal as regards contraception as well, given the circumstances under which he accepted Notre Dame's invite. I seem to have leapt to the wrong conclusion.

Thank you for your response.

[Jonathan Hayward]

No, I've got the right one. He accepted the Laterae Medal in place of Mary Ann Glendon (who refused it because of Notre Dame's conferrence of an honorary degree on President Obama.) He's been around a while-- hence the early date of the book.

He's a political liberal, so I imagined he would be liberal as regards contraception as well, given the circumstances under which he accepted Notre Dame's invite. I seem to have leapt to the wrong conclusion.

Thank you for your response.
That's interesting and a bit concerning... but thank you.

Christos Jonathan

[Margaret S.]

I don't see how you could tell whether a couple were destined to be barren, so how could you advise them to abstain? Or am I missing something?


I don't think you are missing anything. I think the idea of advising 'barren' couples to abstain is the result of wanting to be comprehensive when writing about it. I was reading Christine de Pisan's 'City of the Ladies' last week and although we know she was writing against the liberality and frivolity of Queen Isabeau's court being a mediaeval she has this great need to be rounded and comprehensive so she includes advice for laundry maids and seamstresses in order to have the whole of womankind covered despite the fact they couldn't read. I think we often come across the same kind of thing in theology which is covering all the bases lest someone slide the thin end of a wedge under one of them. We have Elizabeth, we have Sarah, we have Anna and Hannah – and Rachel – the Bible is full of women who couldn't conceive and then suddenly did. My parents were married nine years before they had me and I know they weren't using contraception because my mother once told me she had got as far as registering with an adoption agency before she knew I was en route. I am pretty glad they didn't meet anyone who told them that after eight years trying it was time to give up and be brother and sister!


Regards
Margaret
in Edinburgh

[Panayota K.]

It's interesting that in a thread about contraception the ladies don't participate much while men argue a lot! This issue comes up often in conversations with young couples and single women and men I know and -unlike this conversation here- women have more objections about having many children than men!

Personally I think it's completely a matter of faith. Either you believe that God knows what's best for you, therefore you let yourself to His will, or not. Of course, as a friend of mine said, I'm not married so I don't know first hand what the troubles of a large family are.

Recently I was talking to a newlywed friend and she admitted she can't bare having more than four children and how amazed she is by women that can! Few other friends, members of multi-children families, (again young women) said they don't really enjoy having so many brothers and sisters and if their parents bothered to ask them they would have answered "NO"!

I can detect (perhaps) weak faith in these declarations and quoting from the Fathers...well I don't see how it helps. This is an increasing situation spiritual fathers have to deal with. How can someone -other than quoting- answer to people who feel overwhelmed by the possibility of having many children?

Panyota

[Alice]

Dearest Panayiota,

The beauty of Orthodoxy is that our spiritual fathers understand the real situations of contemporary life, and give eikonomia.

In Athens, for instance, my priest there, who is fairly young was telling us how hard it is for young couples to make ends meet, both must work, and then how can they have more children? Surely no one would have many children to leave them home alone in a small apartment to take care of themselves all day. That would be criminal! This is the reality of today's modern life in many countries whether we like it or not. It takes a village to raise a child, but many people do not live in villages any more and many people do not have enough money to pay others to take care of their child, and/or they have no relatives around who can do it. Therefore, I now understand the low birth rate in countries like Greece and Italy. I used to think it was selfishness, and maybe for some it is, but I now see a very different reality and struggle behind the low birth rate.

The big sin, as I know it in Orthodoxy, besides abortion, is to get married with the intention of having NO children, or to have your tubes tied in order to prevent any future pregnancies, because in these cases you are absolutely acting against the possiblity of children.

I am very happy to see families grow a bit larger in the United States. The standard two child family has grown to three children or more in many cases. People in the U.S. have large houses and it is a shame to not fill them.

Raising children is the single hardest thing one can do in this modern world. Besides all the normal concerns, one must be ever vigilant today to make sure their child is protected from the many evil people lurking around, so you cannot leave them to play on their own like you could decades ago, and that makes life even more stressful.

Anyway, fortunately many of our priests are married, and since they too struggle with the realities and difficulties of contemporary society, they can compassionately give guidance to a couple.

In Christ,
Alice

[Barbara J.]

I agree with Alice's assessment of our modern situation where both parents work, etc. Here are a few questions, thoughts that were inspired by her post. The second question I pose is, obviously, tongue in cheek.

I have seen many situations in my 55 years of life. I have seen couples who struggled for years and were never able to conceive a child. I have seen couples who never used birth control and yet raised only two children. I have seen women who were told they could never have children bear several.

If one follows the fasts of the church we maintain abstinence for over half of the year. This is a God ordained birth control, if you will. The question I come up against is, can the Lord be trusted to decide how many children I have?

I bore three children. We used no birth control for 13 of my child bearing years and the Lord didn't send us any children during that time.

Another possible question is, who can create a child? Does the Lord create the child or does the conception itself commence without His approval or against His will?

[Paul Cowan]

I heard someone from the "outside" complain one time after he counted up all the fasting and restricting days associated with preparation of services, we were left with 43 days to "procreate" in a calendar year. He was not happy. Frankly, to me, that sounds like alot. But then, I don't want kids nor can we have them.

Paul

[Jonathan Hayward]

Raising children is the single hardest thing one can do in this modern world. Besides all the normal concerns, one must be ever vigilant today to make sure their child is protected from the many evil people lurking around, so you cannot leave them to play on their own like you could decades ago, and that makes life even more stressful.
One of a few times I saw my bishop, he commented in reference to the Internet (after someone had mentioned its genuine potential) that porn has always been available, but it used to be that you had to put on your dark glasses and a trenchcoat or other disguise and go to a store with the windows papered to get porn--but now porn comes to you!

Chaste celibacy is much harder for men at least, and I doubt it's much easier for women. For married people to remain married for life is hard. And raising children is hard: it's part of why I wrote Our Crown of Thorns (http://jonathanscorner.com/crown/)...

Panayota and Alice, will you read it? There are no quotes from the Fathers.

Christos Jonathan

[Alice]

One of a few times I saw my bishop, he commented in reference to the Internet (after someone had mentioned its genuine potential) that porn has always been available, but it used to be that you had to put on your dark glasses and a trenchcoat or other disguise and go to a store with the windows papered to get porn--but now porn comes to you!

Chaste celibacy is much harder for men at least, and I doubt it's much easier for women. For married people to remain married for life is hard. And raising children is hard: it's part of why I wrote Our Crown of Thorns (http://jonathanscorner.com/crown/)...

Panayota and Alice, will you read it? There are no quotes from the Fathers.

Christos Jonathan

Yes, I will read it.

[L. Allen]

Alice, sadly, I think child porn has always been around. Not all evils can be blamed on the modern world.

[Barbara J.]

Alice, sadly, I think child porn has always been around. Not all evils can be blamed on the modern world.
What you say is true, up to a point.

Never in the history of the world has the scope and accessibility of porn been so broad. There is a conservative estimate that 60% of the content on the internet is pornographic in nature.

What concerns me, particularly, is that when one turns on the television there is an ever present stream of examples of aberrant behavior.

Sadly, a person watching can learn and can assume that this behavior is so ubiquitous that it might not be so bad!
I hope I'm expressing this clearly. I remember when I watched the Beverly Hillbillies. Elly Mae Clampett showed my 8 year old mind that dressing and behaving as she did was perfectly okay. She usually got her way and Jed didn't ask her to go to her room and cover up!

[Nina]

Yes, the last point is very thought-provoking! I do not know, and perhaps someone who has studied can help me, but it seems plausible to me that the early Fathers simply did not imagine our modern situations - and that's not so surprising, since there are plenty of elderly people who remember well when there was really no such this as contraception for most ordinary people.

There were means of contraception always in the world. But Fathers did not comment on that since it was forbidden because even the OT urges men not to let 'the seed fall on earth'. Fathers have imagined all kinds of situations when they instituted Holy Law which I think is what Barbara has mentioned and Paul too and which is the best Orthodox contraception. Self-control/abstinence during fasting times. This is difficult but it is the best way.

[Jonathan Hayward]

One other note on situations the Fathers didn't imagine:

It is a mistake to think that if we are in a situation the Fathers didn't imagine, their words have nothing to say. It is entirely appropriate to read King Solomon as saying "In the beginning, internet pornography is as sweet as honey, but in the end it is as bitter as gall and as sharp as a double-edged sword." It is somewhat beside the point to protest against King Solomon's original words that he simply didn't imagine the modern conditions of the Internet. Absolutely not--but what is obsolete about his warnings against lust is exactly nothing.

The Fathers simply did not imagine our ability to replace the ancient interdependence on humans with a dependence on technology on wealth. The Fathers did not imagine our ability to live in our own private worlds, or having SecondWife make the same root passion in magic easy to grasp without anything near the debased (occult) ascesis one formerly needed to really delve into the passion. The Fathers knew narcotics--for that matter, frankincense is a narcotic and I wonder how much stimulant property is implied by the Song of Song beloved's fingers dripping with myrrh [oil]--but the Fathers never imagined cocaine, crack, or the idea that you need to take Viagra every night. The Fathers simply didn't imagine "space-conquering technologies" that could relvativize many of the God-created limitations of our embodied life and provide occasions for a lifelong ascesis of love and virtue. Nor did the Fathers imagine the stench of ideas taught in the academy, with heresies that make Arius look holier than St. Athanasius.

But their wisdom is neither irrelevant nor obsolete.

Christos Jonathan

[Nina]

The Fathers simply didn't imagine "space-conquering technologies"
Christos Jonathan

Hmmm how come there are many prophecies about the future? The prophecies for instance of St. Kosmas Aetolos speak about the technology we have today.

Plus we should not speak like Fathers ended in the time past. They are still today. They speak and advise all of us about theosis.

PS BTW Geronda Joseph of Vatopedi departed to the Lord today. Kalo Paradiso Agie Geronda and please pray for us sinners.

[Daniel S.]

Hello everyone - I am new to this discussion group and I was quite intrigued by the thread of replies to a previous post entitled:

" 'Birth Control' among various Orthodox groups" posted April 17, 2002 by Justin, who is a frequent poster - Please review this post for more information.

Although I am not of Eastern Orthodox faith, I was very interested in investigating perspectives and use of contraceptives (of all types, classes, categories, etc. - abortifacient, non-abortifacient, NFP, etc) within Orthodoxy, specifically within marriage. Here is what I noticed, please forgive my bluntness or any ignorance as I am not trying to generalize or be disrespectful: Firstly, Eastern Orthodox views on the topic of contraceptives varies, at least historically, from a strictly traditional and intolerable prohibition of contraceptives of any type to currently a more accommodating and tolerant acceptance depending on family circumstances and counsel with the father. This information has been gathered based on many Orthodox church statements of faith on moral and contemporary issues that are listed on their websites - please see sources.

Secondly, the statistics and demographics. Up to almost a hundred years ago, back in the 1930s when the Anglican Church first permitted use of contraceptives, all churches were in unison on the topic against the use of such methods and condoned anyone practicing them. It could not be any more obvious that contraceptives were not a problem as many families exceeded ten children up to a century ago - and that was normal. In todays society it is very rare to see such large families anywhere and it becomes obvious that the only way this is possible is by contraceptive use! I think anyone would be a fool to jump in and presumptuously defend this fact on abstinence alone, as contraceptives are readily and economically accessible for everyone. Let's keep in mind that over the past century as rural populations have decreased and society has been redistributed to industrialized and urbanized centres this offered a whole lot more leisure time and to consider that abstinence could be strictly observed is hardly imaginable. There appears to be other factors involved here.

So, quickly turning to the point of my discussion - really I would like to raise a question - a question that I believe wasn't addressed in the previous discussion of the aforementioned post in 2002. It is clear that there exists a disparity between the position of the Orthodox Church on the issues of contraceptive use and what is actually taking place outside the Church given the demographics; what are notable causes for such differences historically and how is the Orthodox Church addressing them? Again, I am very interested in understanding what factors have caused this shifting perspective?

If I have incorrectly or unintentionally misrepresented facts I do apologize in advance as my intentions are to understand the full scope of the Orthodox position in this matter. I do look forward to responses and any criticism.




Daniel S.


Sources:

I have been very careful to verify these sources:

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
www.holy-trinity-church.org

Orthodox Church in America
www.oca.org

Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada
www.uocc.ca/en-ca/faith/beliefs/

Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
2006, Vol. 26, No. 8, Pages 721-727

Contraception Fertilite Sexualite (Paris) 1983; 11: 1053–1055
The Greek Orthodox Church and position regarding birth control.
Kapor-stanulovic N, Beric B M.