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

I believe that it is heresy to assert that contraception is OK--even if it is only under "certain circumstances".

Heresy certainly can cover "morals" as well as "faith". Moral heresy can be just as damaging as doctrinal heresy, for, as noted above, our human nature does not forgive offences against the order established by God.

How many marriages have been wrecked by contraception? How many wives have felt used? How many husbands degraded? How many children were never conceived that should have been?

My Church, which I believe to be the true Church established by Christ, has consistently taught for 2,000 years that contraception is unnaceptable. There has been no "evolution" in the Catholic teaching on that point. It was demonstrated above, by those arguing FOR contraception, that the position of the OCA synod has "evolved" [another's word not mine!] along with that of the GOA and others. I am obliged to consider this "evolution" heretical in character. You must realize that it is not out of contentiousness or the desire to offend. I am only trying to present what I know my Church teaches on this issue. I assure everyone that I have no desire to offend, or to show anybody up, or to disrespect the EO synods.

If my postings on this matter are considered offensive, I am sad. I apologize for any mistakes in tone, or any "triumphalism" that you might detect. But I cannot apologize for what I believe. I believe it firmly to be true. Contraception is judged by the Sacred and Orthodox Tradition to be impure and unnaceptable. I will not consent to the undermining of that traditional teaching which my Church has recently affirmed.

LatinTrad

Dear Brethren,

Certainly, the Greek Archdiocese, the OCA, and the Antiochians are not amongst the "conservatives" on these issues. Churches in the old world, the ROCOR here, and the old calendarists tend to keep more closely to what I understand the tradition to be as an orthodox Christian.

Anastasios' point is taken well. The class was quite alarmed even by the rhetorical positing of the question by Fr. Hopko. That's a good thing. Many instructors at SVS use similar methods to stir us from our classroom slumber.

I agree with Latin Trad ( ) in that I allow for no evoluion of doctrine, only further definition of what has always been held. And moral doctrine or dogma can definitely fall into heresy. Basically, it is when a moral scandal becomes a teaching and leads a schism. Look at the Episcopalians in the Diocese of New Hampshire for that one!

The real discussion ultimately comes into what we consider as part of doctrine and dogma and what is deeply held tradition, but not doctrine or dogma.

Murder, abortion, homosexual acts, adultery, fornication, sodomy, etc. all fall under doctrine on the basis that the scripture and canons, i.e. the formal declarative statements of the Church, clearly forbid them in all circumstances.

Canonically, conception control is not referred to directly, however one may look at the canons that forbid married men and women from denying each other on the pretext of piety ("except for a season and by agreement") as implicit condemnation of any permanent marital state that denies the other partner all the benefits of married life including conception. I still find it a "stretch" to consider this implication to simultaneously condemn all cases and examples of artificial non-abortafacient conception control in the context of a monogamous marriage.

In my favor is the fact that there is no prohibition upon the post menopausal or those who otherwise physically cannot conceive from marrying. Even eunuchs are not prohibited marriage! All of these options were available to the Church. It gets back to marriage's primary purpose as a communitarian tool toward salvation.

If they made a canon to prohibit bishops from riding horses, the fathers very well could have condemned (as St. John Chrysostom did) and canonized prohibitions on "conception control."

Most significantly, "Onanism" was never condemned canonically. The scriptural verses show it clear that God was angered by what Onan did, but some say angered over Onan's disobedience to raise up offspring for his dead brother, some say his act of wastage in and of itself. Probably, He was angered by both, in my view.

However, I offer this: that scripture never intentionally confuses things. Viewing scripture as a lesson book, we should understand that had God wanted to teach us that the "wastage" was a mortal sin, he would have not complicated the story by the command to raise up offspring with his brother's wife. He would probably have put this story in the context of Onan's own marriage bed with his own wife.

We're not disagreeing over whether conception control is sin or not. In a sense, the "grave reasons" that are considered a prerequisite for NFP by some posters point to NFP as also being sinful, falling short of the model in some ways. The disagreement is over whether or not these methods are permissable in certain cases to maintain the marriage bond and avoid greater sin such as adultery.

It has certainly been said before for West and East, in general, and specifically for the respective Churches: The Western Church has a tendency to define, as in a legal document, all possible permutations of any issue. The Eastern church has a tendency to leave more fog around the issue than we are comfortable with; what one of my dear RC friends called "the inscutable mysticism of the East."

In Christ,
Andrew

I have tried to explain why this has nothing to do with fertile couples who contracept, or with those who deliberately render themselves infertile.



Yes they are. Those who are physically incapable of the marriage act are not capable of matrimonial consent. Whoops, that's western. Anyway, I know that in the West eunuchs most definitely are prohibited marriage. Josephite marriage is something entirely different--that is the marriage of two people who give matrimonial consent but mutually agree not to excercize their matrimonial rights.



Andrew, you know as well as I that "pharmakeia" was condemned in the Pauline epistles, in the canons, in the writings of the Greek fathers, and a lot of other places.

As far as spilling seed goes, I am not sure where to look in the Eastern Fathers, except that St. John Chrysostom in a homily states that those who "adjust" their marital relations so as to not conceive are worse than those who kill the living, because they deny even one second of life to the offspring that God's Providence would send them.

Notice that he is NOT confused about the nature of contraception. He is not mistaking it for abortion/murder, and makes an explicit distinction between the two (while condemning contraception more forcefully, I might add). He does not portray it as a legislative canon, either, or anything that can be "economized."

Any Eastern Orthodox who thinks that these words no longer apply, because their synod said so, had better do some deep thinking.

LatinTrad

So St John Chrysostom would have had the same words for those who "adjust" their marital relations to avoid conception by using NFP?

Father Deacon,

You raise the same sort of issue I've been puzzling over. If NFP is wrong, then ISTM that somewhere there must be a requirement that married couples have sex every day or so - which I can't seem to find in any set of canons

What has not been brought up, because the focus seems to be on using NFP to AVOID pregnancy, is that it can be used to ACHIEVE pregnancy. Not every married couple is blessed with the physical health to enjoy the conjugal embrace whenever the notion strikes them as a good one. For those among us who have limited opportunities, NFP may well mean the difference between being able to conceive children or not. How can it possibly be sinful to observe the cycle the good Lord established and use it for the strengthening of marriage and family?

Sharon

No.

The moral object is different.

We've been through this before, and you are a married man with 7 kids and you know darn well that in NFP you don't spill any seed, but:

In contraceptive sex, the

MORAL OBJECT=EVIL

END=whatever reason the person had for choosing it. May make the action more or less evil, but cannot make it acceptable because the MO is evil.

CIRCUMSTANCES=other factors that are extrinsic to the action itself. May influence the degree to which it is evil, but because the moral object is evil, contraception is not allowable no matter what these are.

In the avoidance of the fertile periods of the cycle, the

MORAL OBJECT= OK

END= Good or evil depending on whether there are real circumstances that are prohibitive in character.

CIRCUMSTANCES=other factors that are extrinsic to the action. These may be the factors that make conception of a child imprudent.

THUS:

The two actions ("NFP" and "contraception") are entirely different because the moral object is different. Avoiding the fertile periods is an ok moral object--but it may be an evil action if the end is selfish.

Keep in mind that for an action to be allowable, the MO, end, and circumstances must all be acceptable.

Thus, NFP is not always allowable.

LatinTrad

Sharon, brilliant. I brought this up previously. Not only is NFP not contraception, it is opposed to contraception.

NFP is done in complete fidelity to natural law and results in loving any child that ensues. The other is opposed to natural law through the artifical disruption of potential conception.

I see a relativism developing here in the name of moral theology, i.e. attempting to downplay NFP from something that is inherently good, i.e. natural performance of the marital act, with something that may be considered a "lesser evil" and "grave". Is the marital act performed with respect to the God-given cycle of the woman not somehow good? If it is not good, then that creates some serious difficulties in general with the relationship of natural law to Catholic doctrine, of which it is foundational.

St. Thomas Aquinas himself states that the most heinous sins in his opinion were those committed against the natural law, which is a manifestation of God's creation and order.

Latin Trad, once again, the Catholic Church DOES NOT consider the OCA, the GOA, etc. to be heretics. Period. Please do not malign the official teaching of the Church in this regard.
Your own personal interpretations in this regard to the OCA, GOA, etc. have absolutely never been taken up officially by Rome with any kind of decree.

It's not a matter of being offensive, it's a matter of misrepresenting the position of the Catholic Church. There are plenty of Roman clergy running around teaching contraception that have NOT been formally excommunicated.

You can choose to disagree with them theologically, morally etc. which is certainly your choice and even duty if you feel them to be in error.

But it is up to the Church alone to decide on the matter of heresy within the GOA and OCA, not LatinTrad.

Dear Dave,

Please don't jump to conclusions by my use of Fr. Hopko. I do not hold that he is infallible. Please understand the simple point that I intended by referencing him:

That there are Orthodox who recognize that new life is the chief goal of the marital act and to avoid this end is regrettable regardless of the means. This is not to deny that some means are more regrettable than others. Some are more in accord with the nature and dignity of marriage. But all fall short of the mark of having as many children as possible (as Fr. Hopko states -see below). This was my main point. Here are the chief quotes by Fr. Hopko:

"In light of the perspective offered above, the control of the conception of children in marriage is a very delicate matter, discouraged in principle and considered as perhaps possible only with the most careful examination of conscience, prayer and pastoral guidance."

"The voluntary control of birth in marriage is only permissible, according to the essence of a spiritual life, when the birth of a child will bring danger and hardship. Those who are living the spiritual life will come to the decision not to bear children only with sorrow, and will do so before God, with prayers for guidance and mercy. It will not be a decision taken lightly or for self-indulgent reasons."

Dave: I agree with you that Fr. Hopko errs when he states:

"According to the common teaching in the Orthodox Church, when such a decision is taken before God, the means of its implementation are arbitrary. There are, in the Orthodox opinion, no means of controlling birth in marriage which are better or more acceptable than others. All means are equally sad and distressing for those who truly love. For the Christian marriage is the one that abounds with as many new children as possible."

Obviously some methods are better than others (e.g. nonabortifacient over abortafacient, etc.) but, again, I presented this quote of Father Hopko to simply show that, in the true Orthodox perspective, avoiding children in marriage is a sad choice no matter which route a couple chooses. Some choices, despite what Fr. Hopko states, are worse than others. NFP has many advantages over artifical conception control as we all have discussed before.

I hope this clarifies my point a little. Let me know.

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

Sharon,

It may not be in the canons, but there may be some precedence in Scripture. Why else did Solomon have hundreds of wives and concubines?

Of course you are correct. What nobody wants to admit is that NFP can be abused to avoid children, when there is no "grave" reason to do so. As L-T mentions, I am the father of 7 (eight actually, we had a miscarriage about 4 1/2 years ago), so I hope no one is considering that I am advocating immorality. Just because something is allowed, does not mean it is always moral. But as Fr Hopko and others have stated, this should not be contemplated without seeking spiritual counsel. Our grave reasons may in fact be selfish. And it that regard, it may be no better than ABC.

Father Deacon dear,

What about those poor ladies who only got to be with Solomon every three years or so????


Me, I've conceived 5 times, and I've got three I can hug. My dearly demented husband has a number of old injuries etc. I am absolutely certain that the reason for the last 4 conceptions (especially the two sons I can hug) is because I've got my cycle pretty well pinned down - I HAVE to plan

Let me pass along a web addy to you, for yourself and your wife, that you might also find useful in your ministry. It's www.innocents.com [innocents.com]
which is the web addy of the Church of the Holy Innocents in the Fashion District in New York City. Scroll down to the Shrine Book of Life. It's a real book, in a real church, and people stop in every day there to pray. In the book are the names or designations of babies who did not live long enough to be born. (Mine are entered as "two little ones known only to God.") There is no charge to register, nobody will ever try to sell you stuff, or bomb you with spam. You don't have to be Catholic. A couple weeks after you register, you will receive a very nice certificate in the mail - and that's all. There's a Mass once a month at the Shrine for all the babies, and for the comfort of their loved ones. It's a comfort to know that your baby will never be forgotten.

Best,

Sharon

Thank you, Sharon. I just went and entered Shannon, the child I miscarried a few months ago, into the registry. Doing so brought tears to my eyes.

We had a funeral for Shannon, but there was nothing to bury.

Tammy

Tammy, Someone passed the addy on to me when I had need. I've tried to return the favor by passing it along too. So many families out there trying to mourn a loss that society does not acknowledge.

(Who? Me? Need a Kleenex?)


Hugs,

Sharon

Dear Sharon,

thank you. My wife was about 4 months along in 1999 when the baby was spontaneuosly aborted (medical term). I contacted a local mortuary, and arranged for the remains to be cremated. I was able to retrieve our child's remains from the hospital. You should have "heard" the doctor in the lab go silent when I asked for the body of my child to be released to the mortuary. He responded by saying it was a fetus. :rolleyes:

Fr Stephen arranged a service of inurnment in the parish columbarium, which was attended by our family. It is comforting to know where our child is. We named our child Angel Guadalupe.

I was quite surprised that no one had done this before. The doctor commented that no one had asked for the remains from a miscarriage. I had spoken to friends who had miscarriages, and no one had thought about asking for their child's body. I am not belittling anyone who has lost a child due miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. This is a harrowing experience. Our faith teaches us that life and personhood begins at conception, so I thought it only fitting that that life, no matter how short, be accorded respect and a "burial". We list Angel Guadalupe's name for the All Soul's Liturgies.

OK, so I'm getting it on all sides now.

Diak is going after me for "downgrading" NFP from something "naturally good" to something permitted under grave circumstances.

This after Fr. Dcn. Montalvo faulted me for not emphasizing how bad NFP is.

Why don't you guys go after each other instead of killing me?

I'm just trying to type out what I understand to be the basic teaching of the Church, namely, that:

Contraceptive sex=never permitted
Avoidance of the fertile times=only for grave reasons.


A note on "heresy":

Diak, it doesn't take an official pronouncement from the Vatican, naming specific offending synods, for me to believe that there is heresy involved with teaching that contraception is OK. Based on the unanimous witness of Sacred Tradition, affirmed Magisterially in recent decades, it does appear to be a question of something quite like heresy. Diak, I am truly sorry, and I am not saying that those synods are considered "formally" heretical by the Catholic Church. But I do think that advocating contraception as a moral and OK alternative is condemned as heresy by the entire Orthodox Tradition (perhaps that makes it an issue of "material" heresy on the part of the synods in question). Those synods don't have to answer to me, let them answer to Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the orthodox Fathers.

A note on "missing the mark":

I dislike rationalizing contraception by reducing it to a mere imperfection. If there is an "ideal" or a "mark" of having as many kids as possible, contraception is a lot worse than a simple missing of that mark. It misses several other marks as well. It misses the mark of "having relations with one's spouse," reducing them to a selfish exercize in mutual masturbation. It is a lot different from NFP, which involves the unadulterated, NATURAL MARITAL ACT.

Yes, means do matter.


I apologize if I offend anyone.

LatinTrad

Father Deacon,

Many if not most miscarriages occur before the body of the child is large enough to be distinguished with the naked eye. I think that, rather than disrespect, is what is responsible most often for parents not asking for the remains. (Of course there's always denial, and "medical protectiveness" working too...) I have heard of other parents with later miscarriages also cremating or otherwise interring. It seems a very natural, respectful and loving thing to do.

To be charitable to the pathologist, technically speaking, a child in utero (after a certain point) is indeed a fetus, but that fetus is a human fetus, a child in the process of growing to the point where he or she can live outside the womb. One hopes he was being "technical" rather than disrespectful.

Maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-life - I don't see anything wrong with calling my youngest son a toddler, nor my daughter a teenager. They're still my kids. When my kids are in the womb, they are still my kids, and after fertilized egg grows to blastocyst, and blastocyst to embryo, and beyond, they are at a fetal stage of development - fetuses. I don't think any of these terms are evil. They can be used to classify, to describe, and of course when used wrongly, to devalue.

Best wishes to you and your wife. It's terribly untheological I know, but I like to think of the lap of She Who is More Spacious Than The Heavens, full of little ones like your Angel Guadalupe, Tammy's Shannon, and my two little ones.

'Scuse me, gotta go grab some more kleenex...


Best,

Sharon