www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Natural Family Planning or Contraception?

Diak,

There is a lot agreement here. Maybe we are preaching to the choir.


On grave:

In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth --Humana Vitae

Paul

Paul,

you seem to be equating marriage with the conjugal act. I'm saying marriage is much more than the conjugal act. Andrew said it much more eloquently than I, the aim of marriage is community between man, male and female, in communion with the Trinity. To say that the primary aim (or purpose or good) of marriage is procreation, seems to infer in my mind that a marriage is some how validated only if children come forth. To say that is so, somehow puts the marriage of an older man and older woman who are beyond the fertile period of their lives at odds with a teaching that states without exception that procreation is the primary aim of marriage. If the Church taught this was so, why are elderly couples allowed to marry? If they are beyond the fertile period of their lives, it seems pretty futile to require them to bring forth children from their conjugal union. Baring a miracle, the natural union of these persons will not bring forth children.

If a couple is unable to engage in sexual intercourse would the Church prevent them from marrying?

Dear Fr Deacon John,

You and I think alike. I think the limitation of words is keeping us from full agreement.

Marriage is not just the conjugal act. The scope of this discusion is artificial contraception, so we are focused around conjugal relations. Marriage is a much broader subject.

The primary purpose of marriage is to be together permanently as husband and wife. The two become one, (Gen.)
St. Paul has much to say about the duties of husbands and wives.

Normally, sex is part of the marriage union.
Sex is always for union/love of husband and wife.
Procreation is equal to union, but not always possible because of the way God made our bodies.
What God asks is that married couples be open to the procreation of children. The Latin marriage liturgy makes mention of this openess to having children. Using contraceptives is not being open to having children, thus it is sinful.

Marriage is valid for those not able to have children. Being fertile is not a requirement for marriage.

There are some impediments to valid marriage if impotence is present (some may be dispensed), but I am not qualified to discuss them. Consult your canon law.

Christ is our peace,

Paul

Those who are aged have done nothing to impede the nature of the sexual act, and thus may validly marry.
When Thomas Aquinas speaks of procreation as the primary end of marriage he is speaking in an Aristotelian philosophical framework which we are not held to, though I know Roman Catholics who could be called "Thomists of the Strict Observance". It is rumored that the tabernacle in the famed Thomas Aquinas College contains the Summa...
As for impotency, it is an impediment to valid marriage unless it is disclosed to and accepted by the intended spouse. Surely sexual intercourse is not required to make a marriage valid, or St Joseph and the Theotokos would have had an invalid marriage. Still, if the marriage is not to be consumated it must be agreed to beforehand, not a surprise on the wedding night. I would guess this has happened oh, once in history, though there are lots of examples in Christian history of married couples who agree some way into their marriage that they want to live henceforth as brother and sister. At least this is not unheard of in Western Christianity; does anyone know if this happens among Eastern Christians?

Father Deacon John,

I'm not sure when you say there is no official Orthodox position akin to Humanae Vitae if you mean 1)no Orthodox jurisdiction forbids artificial contraception or 2)no Orthodox jurisdiction has ruled on the matter.

If you mean the former that would certainly be true. That this is a more recent view can be seen by looking at earlier editions of Bishop Ware's book _The Orthodox Church_. In the first edition he states that artifical contraception is not allowed in the Orthodox Church. Later editions show the evolution of thought in modern Orthodoxy.

As for the latter, some Orthodox jurisdictions have ruled on the matter. For example, the OCA has an official position:

http://oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/docum...92/Synodal-Affirmations.html#procreation

One prominent priest of the OCA told me that he felt that the priest who runs the Stephanos Project (which affirms the traditional Orthodox view on contraception) should stop what he was doing and should submit to the position of his Church.

Fr John Whiteford wrote me about how contraception is viewed in ROCA.

As far as I know, no Orthodox jurisdiction today has an official position restricting the use of artificial contraception.

As far as I know, ROCOR has prohibited artificial contraception.
As have the Old Order Amish, probably with higher compliance than other Churches. And a few of the more conservative Mennonites, the Bruderhof, and perhaps some others.
No offense intended, but the OCA statements sound like doubletalk to me; moral license among Christians is always preceeded with a lot of hemming and hawwing.

Well, in the quote from Fr John Whiteford above it appears that ROCA has not ruled on the issue of artificial contraception and that some would accept it.

Hi,

I have not read this whole discussion, but I just want to interject my 2 cents worth.

The Billings Method is the best to use in my humble opinion. It fulfills all the obligations of the Church, and once understood is very simple, uncomplicated, and because both are involved brings a much deeper relationshiop. It is much over looked but will really help young and old alike.

http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/

As a former teacher of Billings I will back Pani Rose on that

BUT though it will stand on it's own I am unhappy when the Billings Method is combined with other Sympto Thermal indicators - here I feel that the use of all these indicators of a woman's fertility being used to detect/anticipate/identify the onset of fertility in each cycle is then verging on the use of it as birth control.

When teaching we always stressed that each act of intercourse was open to the gift of life and never guaranteed 100% success. We did offer to investigate should pregancy occur when a couple would have preferred to delay it but of course this would mean sending the couple's charts in the final analysis to John and Lynn Billings.

Anhelyna

I am frustrated.

1) The primacy of procreation among the ends of marriage does not imply that infertile couples cannot marry, or that the marriage is only valid if children come forth. The other two ends (union and remedy) are real, genuine ends of marriage, and for a couple who does nothing to artificially disrupt the primary end, even if they cannot achieve it the other two ends suffice. The hierarchy among the ends of marriage does not mean that the "lesser" ends are not real ends. If you don't believe me here, or if you think I'm making this up, I beg you to read Pius XI's magnificent encyclical letter Casti Connubii.

2) No kidding that marriage is meant to be a fellowship of life, etc. No kidding that marriage is more than the conjugal act. Anybody who's been married for more than 30 seconds has realized these important truths. But, once again, these truths are not contradicted by saying that God instituted marriage primarily for the sake of procreation & secondarily for the sake of union and the mutual support of the spouses, and that after the fall it serves as a remedy for concupiscience also.

Why is procreation called "primary"? Think about it. You can have a fellowship of life with a monastic community, or a political party, or your college buddies. You can also have a fellowship of life with your spouse. But raising a family? Forming offspring to be fit heirs of the Kingdom? Fulfilling God's plan for the extension of His Church to the next generation? You can only do that with your spouse!

This does not deny that you are supposed to have a fellowship of life with your spouse, so don't misconstrue what I'm saying. But it does imply tha God instituted marriage, in a unique and primary way, for the sake of the offspring.

Now, as far as artificial contraception is concerned, I rest my case on what I said earlier. Any arguments to justify "Christian" contraception are a disastrous departure from the saving truth of Christ. NO MATTER WHAT REASONS ARE STATED. It is a specious bunch of rationalization.

As far as NFP is concerned, I want to be clear that the Church does not promote it as the way to live your marriage. The avoidance of the fertile times should only be a response to grave circumstances.

God bless all.

In Christ,

LatinTrad

Dear Diak,

Economia. Yes, you spotted it!

I'm getting old and starting to compromise on the severity with which we must apply the canon/rule, but, God willing, never on the rule itself.

In Christ,
Andrew

I think that it is quite problematic to view the prohibition on contraception as a mere "canonical" or "disciplinary" norm.

This, of course, would allow dispensations, "economia," and the like.

But, the Fathers' teaching on contraception is clearly that it violates the natural law. It is akin to murder and theft. Thus, bishops are no more entitled to hand out "contraception dispensations" than they are to hand out "murder dispensations" or "abortion dispensations."

The OCA and any other synods that allow this have departed from the Apostolic Faith. They are teaching heresy. Not only that, they are unwittingly wreaking havoc with Christian family life. An old addage states that God always forgives, man sometimes forgives, but nature never forgives. Thus, the psychological scars caused by contraception (not to mention the missing children!) will afflict the Eastern Orthodox faithful for generations to come.

LatinTrad

L-T,

be careful using the term "heresy". In all his efforts to heal the rift between East and West, the Holy Father has never mentioned anything but the primacy of Peter as the issue that seperates Catholics and Orthodox.

This analogy is weak. The "fellowship" of marriage is the only human "fellowship" of divine institution. Marriage is the only "fellowship" of a man and a woman that images God.

The CCC avoids the term "primary":

CCC 1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament.

Dear LT,

My favorite G.K. Chesteron quote

Paul

I agree with Fr Deacon John; "heresy" is a word to be used with extreme caution, and is not applicable in this case. "Heresy" is a denial of the doctrinal truths of the faith, not a lapse in moral ethic.
I would point out that Rome emphasizes the primacy of Peter precisely because once that is agreed on we have a common ground to address other, more peripheral issues.
I do agree with LT that the issue in question is not like canon law, a human construct that may be dispensed with for a greater human good; it is part of the moral law, which man cannot alter.