www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Contraception

I can appreciate your point here, my Latin brother. After all Soorp Boghos states in his first Epistle to the Corinthians,

"No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way to escape, that you may be able to bear it" (10:13).

I understand Brother Andrew's arguement very clearly. My real question is where did this argument derive? I'm sure he will say from his reading of the Gospel, but what Father(s) taught this, namely: that it is permissible for a Christian to commit sins if they prevent us from commiting greater ones? If I could clearly see this as part of (at least) the Eastern Christian Tradition, I would be very open to accepting it.

Other than this I'm left with the Patristic testimony which is severly condemnational against all forms of contraception in EVERY situation (including what most of us would see today as unselfish reasons).

Trusting In Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian

Thanks, Ghazar.

Actually, I don't understand the argument that it is permissible to commit sins in order not to commit greater sins. I have not seen this anywhere in the Fathers of the East . . . and it doesn't seem to make any sense.

It opens the door to all manner of excuses as well, like "I had to have the abortion in order to avoid suicide," or "I had to kill the guy in order not to get so frustrated that I would kill more-than-one-guy," and "I had to become an alcoholic because it was either that or adultery." I don't think excuses of this nature will serve us well on judgment day. I think Christ would say to such a person "Why didn't you trust MY GRACE? MY GRACE could have kept you from sin; you didn't need to indulge in sin, in order to avoid other sins!!"

"My grace is sufficient unto you."


Thoughts?

I think that some folks are still misunderstanding my position:

I don't believe that I said that any sins are "permitted," (be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect), but accepted (all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.)

I've never argued that the Church bless the use of ABC in ANY context. The Church never blesses sinful acts, however she gets really close! When she blesses a second marriage, it is in a clearly penitential context. Nonetheless, she does bless second marriages in that penitential context! A person who seeks a second marriage as their "right" and not as an act of mercy should not receive the blessing! (The first marriage is their "right" and not to be denied to practicing, prepared Orthodox Christians.)

No one can justify sin. In fact, are even the righteous justified by their actions? Or is it by faith that anyone is justified? So the key will be if the member committing the sinful act (remarriage, use of ABC, pot-smoking) is doing it in the hope of a full healing.

There is almost no healing potential in mortal sins and that is why the Church exercises very little accomodation of them, although she does re-admit perpetrators of such back into communion through pennance.

Just as no priest in his right mind should give a blessing to his parishioner to stay home on Sunday and read the newspaper, he might also understand that same "staying home and reading the newspaper" differently when he gets all of the facts (that the member is under some emotional stress, special burden etc.) It still does not warrant a blessing, but an understanding of context. Ideally, the parishioner would come to worship, commune, and be healed, but he doesn't understand that yet, so he stays at home one Sunday to deal with his stress. Not a bad fellow, but needs a little work.

However, the member who says that they are staying at home to read the newspaper "because current events outweigh anything that Christ could do on a Sunday morning" gets no understanding and probably deserves some kind of pennance for his pride and audacity.

Neither gets a blessing, but one is trying, perhaps erroneously, in faith. The Church must recognize that.

My specific reply to the contention that use of ABC is a mortal sin and that all sexual sins are mortal ones is: why has this not evidenced in our Scriptures and Holy Canons?

Why do the canons go to great length to specify and assign periods of excommunication for the mortal sins of adultery, sodomy, bestiality, incest, and fornication but not for coitus interruptus, natural family planning, masturbation, and other lesser sexual sins?

Indeed, a married couple who share conjugal relations on the eve of the eucharist are excommunicated for their sexual sin, if one reads the canons honestly, but only for one day! They should not commune at that specific eucharistic offering. But at the next offering, if they are prepared, they may commune. The same is true for nocturnal emissions, if their origin is the "lust for a woman," the sinner abstains for one day from the eucharist. If their origin is not the "lust for a woman," then the member may commune, so says the Holy Canon. It is still a sexual sin, but one may commune.

It doesn't sound like a mortal sin to me if the norm is to abstain from the eucharist for one day!

As some one pointed out earlier, most ABC methods in use in the patristic era were in fact abortafacient ones and were rightly condemned as "worse than murder." (Although, interestingly, the canon assigns 20 years excommunication to the murderer and only 10 years of excommunication to the aborter.) I don't believe that we are discussing those despicable methods of killing, but many of the fathers were! And many people, failing to prevent conception through non-abortifacient ABC have then turned to these other methods. Of this, most likely, Paul is speaking when he condemns the "farmakia" of his day.

So I admit to not having read many of the fathers' diverse opinions on ABC, but I do know what the Scriptures and Canons tell us.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Andrew you cannot conflate things like second marriage after the death of one's spouse with intrinsically sinful acts like contraception. I disagree with your contention that second marriage is considered a "sin" by the Holy Canons; it is considered less-than-ideal, but not intrinsically sinful (how else could the Church bless it?).

First of all, the fact that the Canons do not prescribe periods of excommunication for coitus interruptus and masturbation does not mean they are not mortal sins. The canons seem to be allowing one the opportunity to confess those sins before Sunday Liturgy, and not miss a communion. The Catholic Church, for whatever it's worth to you, has always taught that masturbation is a mortal sin, as well as coitus interruptus. Nevertheless, if one receives absolution for those sins, with purpose of amendment, he need not stay away from Holy Communion.

Coitus interruptus is not just considered less-than-ideal by the Scriptures--it's considered an abomination before God. That's what the Onan passage in Genesis is all about.

As I understood it, breaking the fast before Liturgy just meant that you couldn't receive; it did not, strictly speaking, constitute a "sexual sin". Moreover, we must not conflate Church discipline with the natural moral law. Contraception is opposed to the meaning of the marital act. It turns the marital act into a lie, and as such is opposed to the order of nature as much as it is to that of Scripture.

Moreover, contraception is the sanke-in-the-grass in these modern "marriages". In 1930, the year Episcopalians started with contraception, 1 out of 11 marriages (in the US) ended in divorce. That number rose so sharply over the next decade that by 1940 it was more like 1 out of 6, I think. By 1970, as Catholics and conservative prots abandoned the Church's teaching, the number rose to 1 out of 2. Many converted couples could tell you of the negative effects contraception had on their marriages: disgust for each other and for the marital act, the loss of companionship and friendship that drove them to the brink of divorce.

Contraception destroys marriages and families; nothing can destroy marriages and families without destroying societies. I think it is safe to say that contraception has been in the forefront of our society's destruction.

LatinTrad

Dear LatinTrad,

Again, I can only speak to the Eastern Tradition.

If conjugal relations prior to the eucharist are not sexual, what are they? And if they are not a sin, why is the couple directed to abstain? Answer that one!

While I still hold that use of ABC is not automatically a mortal sin, my very first post on this thread pointed out that it could lead one to a gluttonous lifestyle.

I believe that gluttonous way of living to be mortally sinful and agree wholeheartedly with your estimate of the catastrophe that the "sexual revolution," starting in the 1920s, has wrought. There is no life in it, literally.

But a sparing or rare useage of ABC by a monogamous Christian couple for a specific health-related reason does not necessarily equate with a gluttonous lifestyle. So I'll leave it there.

Thanks for hearing me out!

In Christ,
Andrew

As I understood it, brother, the couple was directed to abstain if they wanted to receive Communion--and that they were not strictly bound to receive. Therefore, a married couple could choose not to abstain--just like I could eat a donut before Mass--and would just refrain from Communion due to the absence of proper preparation. Of course, you'd wonder where my priorities were to eat a donut before Mass, but "sin" proper would not be involved as long as I didn't sacreligiously receive Communion.

Maybe I am wrong about that Eastern canon. I don't know. The disciplinary canons about abstaining from marital relations at specific times have not been in force in the West for a long, long time.

I don't think that the use of contraception, however sparing and for whatever reason, can be fit into the Christian understanding of basic morality. The Holy Tradition in the West has always judged contraception to be, "in and of itself," a grave sin. Since the ends do not justify the means, the reason for which the contraception is practiced becomes comlpletely irrelavent.

I am sorry for being a bit pedantic; but if we start making exceptions we undermine the foundations of morality. Without a consistent application of moral norms, we would be unable to restrict these practices at all.

LatinTrad

Exactly.

With all due respect, Andrew's arguments sound dangerously close to situation ethics, IMHO.

But to tell the truth, all that "oikonomeia" (sp?) business sounds like situation ethics to me -- whether it's justifying ABC or divorce/remarriage.

Please don't tell me I Just Can't Understand because I Don't Grasp the Eastern Mindset. Truth is truth, whether it's in the East, the West, the North, or the South. And for that matter, there are some very Eastern cultures that reject ABC--large chunks of the Third World, for instance, including some Muslim and Hindu cultures. Cain't get much more Eastern than that!

Oikonomeia by any other name is still Situation Ethics.

My two kopecks, fwiw...

ZT

reply: Could you explain the difference when you speak of the Church accepting our sins but not permitting them. This might help us to understand what you are saying.

reply: Are you saying there is healing potential in lesser sins? I thought all sin was moving us away from God because it is going against His will for our lives. How can any sin move us closer to him? Are you saying that a lesser sin doesn't move us as far away from God as a greater one might? If so, I think this makes some sense. But this all seems to run contrary to the teaching so present among the Fathers, which prompted the Holy Golden-Mouthed to instruct husbands to admonish wives with the following words: "Teach her that there is nothing in life that is to be feared, save only offending against God" (Homilies on Ephesians 20).

reply: I think the Roman Catholics also make a distinction between those who do wrong intentionally or out of force of habit or some other mitigating factor. So, I don't think you are so far off track here (as some might think). I think the way you are stating it is unfamiliar to most RC's. If you knew the common Latin terms and expressions you might be able to express what you are saying in a way much more acceptable to them. So, what I'm saying is that I think there is some speaking past each other going on here.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

reply: Brother, I invite you to consider what I have copied below concerning the teachings of the Fathers against contraception. If you look at the Scripture which deals directly with contraception (involving Onan) -AND- the Patristic and even Jewish interpretation of this passage (which is crucial), I think it shows the Scriptures do speak clearly against it. Also, as regard the canons, whether there are or are not canons against it, I'm not sure (I'm not a canon lawyer) but the penitentials of East and West have -according to Tradition- always held severe condemnations and penances for Christians who contracept. Contraception might not be treated on the level of murder but it is handled much more severly than something like telling "white-lies" or certain other lesser faults.

reply: This is simply untrue. As I've already stated, the Fathers clearly distinguished against Pharmakeia which destroyed the fetus and other Pharmakeia which prevented conception (often called "drugs of sterility") and they condemned them both in the strongest terms. So, please, lets not misrepresent their teachings.

Please indulge me by allowing me to quote from the study I did on this topic (otherwise, I have to re-create the wheel by trying to type all this out again. The following touches on: "Pharmakeia," and Onan but especially on the Tradition of the Church on contraception:

Is Contraception Orthodox? (parts of chpt. 3 and all of chpt 4)

Kipley also shows this condemnation of contraception is also supported by the New Testament:

�In the New Testament, the Greek �pharmakeia� probably refers to the birth control issue. �Pharmakeia� in general was the mixing of various potions for secret purposes, and it is known that �pharmakeia� were mixed in the first century A.D. to prevent -or- stop a pregnancy. The typical translation as �sorcery� [or witchcraft -in the English Bibles] does not reveal all of the specific practices condemned by the New Testament. In all three of the passages in which it appears, it is in a context condemning sexual immorality; two of the three passages also condemn murder (Galatians 5:19-26, Revelation 9:21, 21:8, 22:15).�

Thus it is known by scholars that, �the etymology of the word, �witch-craft� has derived from the Greek �pharmakeia� is associated with a knowledge of herbs and roots used for abortion and contraception.� (Witchcraft and the Culture of Death, by Jameson Taylor, HLI Reports vol.1 #2 p. 14)

In conclusion, Kipley sums up the Biblical record, stating:

�The interpretation that Onan�s sin was only the violation of the Levirate custom is a recent accommodation for the practice of unnatural forms of birth control. It is not upheld by the text or the context. On the contrary, the Onan account provides a powerful biblical basis for the traditional Christian teaching that unnatural forms of birth control are immoral. This interpretation is reinforced by certain New Testament passages, and it is certainly confirmed by centuries of usage� (pgs. 23-28).

As the great Father St. John the Golden-Mouthed (Chrysostom) teaches, "The procreation of children in marriage is the �heritage� and �reward� of the Lord; a blessing of God (cf. Psalm 127:3)." It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union through which God Himself joins the two together into �one flesh� (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, et. al.). The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the �sacrament of love� (cf. Orthodox Marriage Service & St. John Chrysostom, On Ephesians, Homily 20).�

In the next chapter, we will consider what Kipley refers to as �centuries of usage� by examining the teaching of the great Church Fathers who are the torchbearers of the authentic Tradition of the Church..


CHAPTER FOUR - The Teaching of the Holy Fathers

All questions are clarified when we consider the consistent witness of two thousand years of Orthodox Christian doctrine on this matter. Regrettably, contemporary Orthodox theologians are not utilizing this witness to support their �new views� when they write on this issue. Now that we know, based on the above evidence of John T. Noonan, that the Holy Fathers weren�t confused about human biology but held a very accurate -albeit philosophical- view, we can affirm with Fr. Azkoul, �Their place in the Orthodox religion cannot be challenged. Their authority cannot be superseded, altered or ignored.� In fact, when we look to the Fathers on the issue of contraception we find a consistent, authentic, unchanging Orthodox doctrine which extends all the way back to the ancient church.
Before we consider the witness of the Church Fathers, it is important to note that this is not even a teaching which is uniquely Christian. The Jews also interpreted the Onan account in the same way. One evidence of this comes from �a rabbi in the third century of the Christian era [who] noted �the deadly sin of Onan,� and in the context the sin is clearly his contraceptive act� From the same time period, �there is a quotation of Rabbi Johanan de Nappala, the founder of a school at Tiberias in the third century, on the deadly sin of Onan, and the sin here is clearly his contraceptive act.� He is quoted as saying, �whoever emits semen in vain deserves death.� (Contraception, p.10, 50)
Thus, when we consider the teaching of the Fathers, it is important to realize they were not inventors of this doctrine but rather preservers of an already established rule of Faith. We will see that far from this being some distortion or novelty of Western Christianity this is rather the universal Orthodox Faith of the early Fathers of both East and West and of the entire Catholic Church..
There is the witness of the earliest Christian document outside the New Testament, written as early as A.D. 70, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It was originally composed for the Greek speaking Christian Churches of either Egypt or Syria. In it, the author repeats the New Testament condemnation of pharmakeia which, again, included �drugs of sterility.� We read, �But the way of Death is this: First of all, it is wicked and full of cursing -murders, adulteries, lusts, sexual promiscuities, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, sorceries [pharmakeia or drugs of sterility]... murderers of children, corrupters of God�s creation... may you be delivered from all these. (5:1,3). The Epistle of Barnabas, written a few decades later, repeats this condemnation of pharmakeia (Chp. 20).
In A.D. 191 we have the witness of St. Clement of Alexandria, Egypt (A.D. 150-215). He was a Greek writer who had a significant impact on the theology of the early Church. Referring to Onan�s evil act, St. Clement explains, �He broke the law of coitus.� (Critical Comments on Genesis 6, PG 69:309). Against contraception St. Clement remarks, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children).
Another Greek writer, St. Hippolytus of Rome (A.D. 170-236), wrote around A.D. 225 against worldly Christians who were practicing contraception and abortion. He writes, "the so-called faithful want no children... they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion]" (Refutation of All Heresies).
Another witness from the Alexandrian Church comes from the writings of the renowned priest named Origen (A.D. 184-254). He is acclaimed to be "the most accomplished biblical scholar of the early church" (Funk/Wagnal). In his day pagans practiced contraception, abortion, infanticide as well as a host of other evils. In the letter Contra Celsum, Origen refuted the teachings of the pagan philosopher Celsus. Speaking of God�s people in the Old Testament the Eastern Father, writes, "nor were there among them women who sold their beauty to anyone who wished to have sexual intercourse without offspring, and to cast contempt upon the nature of human generation" (Bk: 6, chp. 42 p.1111). In the early Church it was clear that to have sexual intercourse without being open to offspring was to commit an evil act.
The Latin philosopher and apologist, Lactantius Firmianus, (A.D. 240-320) in A.D. 307 attested to the Christian belief that abstinence is the only licit means of limiting family size. He spoke of those who "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power... or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife... the genital [generating] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (Divine Institutions 6.23.18).
There is also the witness of the Greek theologian St. Epiphanius of Salamis (A.D. 315-403). He was born and raised in Judea and latter became Bishop of Salamis on the Island of Cyprus. In A.D. 375, St. Epiphanius wrote against those who "exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies, Panarion 26.5.2-6). Noonan records that, �St. Ephraem (A.D. 306-373), a Syrian contemporary of Epiphanius, said that Onan acted out of both hate for his brother and love for Thamar, and was killed for �his bitter trick.�� (p.101)
The great Antiochian Greek Father, St. John �the Golden-Mouthed� or Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407), Patriarch of Constantinople, preached a homily in A.D. 391 condemning contraception and abortion. He exclaimed, "Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth [abortion]? 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 gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?... Yet such turpitude... the matter still seems indifferent to many men -even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons [i.e. contraceptives] are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (Homilies on Romans, 24).
The great Latin Father St. Ambrose of Milan (A.D. 340-397), who was directly responsible for the conversion of St. Augustine, wrote against abortion and contraception. Noonan records, �St. Ambrose spoke of potions used in marriage in the course of his commentary on Genesis, ...he exclaimed, The rich �lest their patrimony be divided among several, deny their own fetus in their uterus and by a parricidal potion extinguish the pledges of their womb in their genital belly, and life is taken away before it is transmitted�� (Hexameron 5.18.58). Noonan explains, �To users of potions preventing life, [Ambrose] applied the condemnation �parricide�. From the context where protection of inheritance is the object of these acts, it is probable that any use of the potions in marriage is what is condemned.� (p.99)
Another Latin Father, St. Jerome (A.D. 343-420), also treated the subject of contraception. A student of St. Gregory the Theologian and translator of the Vulgate edition of the Holy Bible, St. Jerome�s translation would become the standard Bible of the West for the next millennia. Condemning the immorality of the Roman women of his time, he wrote, �Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born.� This repeated reference to �drinking sterility� by the Fathers is an obvious reference to pharmakeia or oral contraceptives. Noonan comments, �Evidently contraception was known and practiced in fashionable Catholic circles. Jerome denounces it in strong terms...� (p. 101).
Then there is the witness of St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430), the Latin Father from Carthage, North Africa. One of the most celebrated doctors of the Church, and regarded by many as the greatest Western Father, it can be noted that in the Latin West, "the place of prominence held by Augustine among the Fathers and Doctors of the Church is comparable to that of St. Paul among the apostles" (Funk/Wagnal). As a bishop, St. Augustine helped defend many Christian doctrines when they were challenged by some in the early church. On contraception he wrote, "Relations with one's wife when conception is deliberately prevented are as unlawful and impure as the conduct of Onan who was slain" (Radio Replies Vol.1-#1305). This is another clear example of how the early Church Fathers understood the biblical lesson of Onan.
A Greek penitential, attributed to St. John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople (582-595), states, �If someone to satisfy his lust or in deliberate hatred does something to a man or woman so that no children be born of him or her, or gives them to drink, so that he cannot generate or she conceive, let it be held as homicide.� (Churchly Disciplines and the Christian Religion, 2.89).
The above mentioned William Klimon, records, �The Penitential ascribed to John IV Nesteutes [St. John the Faster] considers it a form of infanticide, categorizing several kinds of birth control: application of ointment (trimata) that is perceived as the least heinous; drinking a potion (pharmakon); and the worst--the use of a herbs to induce abortion (PG 88:1904C). Another text attributed to the same author (col. 1924A) required sinners to confess their desire to remain childless, induce an abortion, or use contraceptive herbs� (Contraception: Early Church vs. Eastern Orthodox).
As we have seen, far from this being considered the exclusive doctrine of a particular Church, it has been demonstrated that this condemnation of contraception was the universal teaching of the entire Catholic Church. We have already seen testimony from the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Judea, Cyprus, Carthage, Milan, and Syria. A further example of this universality comes from the distant land of Armenia, which was outside the Roman Empire. Noonan writes, �A penitential of the Armenian Church, written by David of Ganjak (d. 1140), has a strong denunciation of coitus interruptus� In it he states, �Certain evil men, in the course of fornication or in order to spite their wives, act contrary to Creation, that is, they spill the seed of pro-creation which the Lord established for the increase [of his creatures], which act is cursed by the Church of God. If anyone is possessed by the Evil One and does this many times, he shall be classed among the murderers. But the Vartabeds, considering his heavy penance, may reduce the period.� (no.54). David of Ganjak also states, �unmarried prostitutes who take drugs to prevent pregnancy are counted among those who kill their child in the womb,� (ibid. no. 53). On this, Noonnan remarks, �Would this Armenian work reflect an older Eastern tradition? The statement of the use of drugs by prostitutes is not far from St. John Chrysostom; the statement on coitus interruptus as a way of �spiting one�s wife� is not far form St. Ephraem�s description of the act as �a bitter trick.�� (p. 168). Thus it is manifest that the faith of the early Church regarding the evilness of contraception is well established, crystal-clear and universal.


Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Dear Br. Mor Ephrem,

This is not a dumb but rather a very common question. Actually we dealt with this precise issue several month ago in great length. Here's the link, if you have any further things you'd like to discuss based on this, let me know.

Your brother in Christ's Light,

Ghazar

https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001383;p=5

Dearest Gentlemen,

So what I can't figure out is why we are classing differently things that are the essentially the same. Which of the "sterility drugs/oral contraceptives" to which the fathers refer are non-abortafacient? Perhaps the only one may have been spermicidal ointments.

When I'm discussing ABC, I'm talking about the prevention of conception. 99% of the so-called sterility drugs and oral contraceptives do absolutely nothing to prevent conception of a human embryo. All that they do is prevent its implantation on the wall of the uterus. They are abortafacient methods, almost without exception! Those who use them are often guilty of abortion, unknowingly.

This includes the newer "contraceptives" such as the pill, the patch, and the so-called "emergency contraceptive" medicines. They prevent attachment of a conceived human to the wall of the uterus.

Look at the contexts cited by the fathers in condemning these abortafacient methods: He who wants to cheat his wife out of a child, those who want NO children, Ambrose cited a cause of greed amongst the rich in reference to their inheritances, and, of course, the adulterous and the prostitutes.

I wish that you would remember that I said "non-abortafacient" methods of ABC would be the only ones that the Church might understand the usage out of ekonomia. The conditions that I outlined were narrow and, as I said, not the norm or model, but understandable. The condition that I outlined does not fit into any example given in the fathers opinions above (and, they are only opinions) and certainly not into the scriptural or canonical norms.

I would expect to exegete Onan in a separate reply.

Eastern Economia has been wrongly bad-mouthed on this thread. But it exists for a good reason. For example: would we have both mother and fetus die during an ectopic pregnancy? No, we attempt to move the fetus to the uterus where he/she belongs, knowing that in 95% of the cases, the fetus will not attach and will be spontaneously aborted. Economia says: it is understandable to save one life while trying and hoping to save both, knowing that inaction means that both would probably perish. Is the mother guilty of abortion, mortal sin, or of trying to save her baby and herself?

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Read in between St. ("the Blessed") Augustine's quotation marks: "when conception is deliberately prevented." Still immoral.

Andrew, I think what Zoe Theodora meant to say is that "oikonomia", if understood as a principle that could sanction objectively evil acts, is nonsense. I don't think that her condemnation applies to oikonomia properly so called.

Andrew, it doesn't matter how "narrow" your conditions are. You cannot use oikonomia to make allowances for contraception, any more than you could use it to make allowances for adultery or fornication.

Regarding ectopic pregnancies: any surgical act that involves the direct killing of the child is immoral. Several 20th-century Catholic mothers have willingly died to uphold that principle.

God Bless all.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

LatinTrad,

With respect to ectopic pregnancies, you are being "more Catholic than the Pope." The Church has held that it is lawful to remove the affected fallopian tube.

Yes, several mothers have chosen martyrdom rather than doing this. That doesn't mean that all Catholic or Orthodox women experiencing this tragic condition are required to do so.


Sharon

reply: Noonan's book goes into these in some detail. There are others as well. The impression I have reading these discriptions over the years was that couples either accepted the natural result of the marital act (i.e. children) and remained open to it (i.e. the Christian position) or they used whatever means or potions or concoctions they could to prevent it. And whether these concoctions were abortifacient or mearly contraceptve, they were similarily condemned as we have seen.

�there is a quotation of Rabbi Johanan de Nappala, the founder of a school at Tiberias in the third century, on the deadly sin of Onan, and the sin here is clearly his contraceptive act.� He is quoted as saying, �whoever emits semen in vain deserves death.� (Contraception, p.10, 50)

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

So there's no salvaging of contraception here in any form. The Fathers, like the Jews before them, clearly condemned it.


reply: You're right. I'm glad you point this out. Many are committing abortions when they think they are contracepting. This is because the two acts are related, like sisters. Contraception and Abortion go hand and hand. They always have. Fr. John A. Hardon has a lecture, I heard, where he discuses the fact that since ancient times every people which has accepted contraception has always also accepted abortion. Our generation is no different. I pray that our Churches will continue to be as they have always rejected both (until today).

reply: Don't stop there, brother. Add to your above list those who "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children" -something many Christians today would see as legitimate reasons. The fact is contraception was never spoken of as legitimate for Christians for any reason. Lets face it, we in our prosperity have lost our sense of sacrifice and dedication to God. We are fat, lazy comfortable Christians. This is the bottom line, we cringe from anything that's going to move us out of our comfort zones. Contraception helps us maintain our cush despite what the Fathers taught.

reply:
If you are referring to the teachings of the Fathers, I come from the school that the unanimous witness of the Fathers is a binding part of Holy Tradition. I can not ignore it, alter it or make it according to my lifestyle.

reply:
Please do. I'm particularly interested in Patristic interpretation rather than someone's modern day private one.

Your brother in Christ's Light,
Wm. D.G.

Dear Mother Sharon, I'm glad that you offered that insight into the most difficult of choices for a pregnant Christian woman.

Our dear brother, Latin Trad wrote:

"Any surgical act that involves the direct killing of the child is immoral."

But that is the whole point, that the surgical act is not the direct killing of the child. The surgical act may save the child, if it attaches to the uterus, but it in no way directly kills the child. In fact, the child may be spontaneously aborted and still be alive. As technology advances, we may even someday be able to support this fragile life outside of the womb. My wife, an RN has seen amazing things in this regard, even at 14 weeks in one case.

So is the surgical act immoral in and of itself or does it depend upon the context and purpose in which it is carried out?

The scriptures/commandments say not to bear false witness. So when the Orthodox Bishop of Corfu (Kerkyra) told the Jew-hunting German officer that he himself was the only Jew on Corfu, signing his own name to the empty list of "Jews on Corfu," was he committing a mortal sin by defying the letter of the commandment or did he glorify God by his witness to the Gospel?

Yelling "fire" in a theatre when there is none is a sin. Yelling "fire" in a theatre when there is one is the right thing to do.

All actions have a context and intent. Some, no matter what the context and intent, are unjustifiable. Some are fully justifiable (see my two examples above). In some cases, we don't even know and must throw ourselves at the mercy of God. ("As fish are caught up in a net, so are men caught up in an evil age").

With love in Christ,
Andrew