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

All,

Even all the wisdom of Christ's Church, Humana Vitae and all her moral teachings are "straw" without a true conscience formed by the Gospel and the magesterium of the Church.

The Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas, came to visit one day. His counsel was:

"It is better to feel compunction
than to define it."

This is my last post on this thread.

God bless you,

Paul

I too am frustrated, LT. I am no fan of artificial contraception, but your last post cannot go without response.

Your personal assessment of the OCA and others as "heretical" is clearly against the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as can be seen in Orientalium Dignitas, Orientale Lumen, Slavorum Apostoli, Ut Unum Sint, Unitatis Redintegratio, and several other documents of Vatican II, among others.

For someone who by his tone would presume to be a voice of Catholic orthodoxy on this Forum, I would suggest he understand his Church's position with regard to the Orthodox. One sample:

Unitatis Redintegration, Vatican II

I don't think the term "closest intimacy" would be used by a Church Council to describe a relationship with heretical Churches. They certainly don't use this language to describe Protestants. Thankfully, those determinations are for the Church, and not one individual, to make. I challenge you to produce even one public document from Rome supporting your accusation of a specific proclamation of heresy against the OCA Synod.

A discussion of moral issues is one thing. An accusation clearly against the teaching of the Church is entirely another. The issue of contraception has NEVER been brought up in the official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. Were it a central point of dogma in the eyes of the Church, it would certainly be high on the agenda.

By the way, the OCA is not alone in this matter, there are Roman clergy out there recommending the same things, some of them publicly. Surely you know this. Are they heretics? Not until the Church determines them to be.

God bless you all on this eve of the great Saturday of All Ascetics, and may He give us a spirit of humility, compunction and forgiveness as we enter the Great Fast.

Dear Diak,

What is the icon you have as your avatar? I don't believe I've seen it before. It is very beautiful.

In Christ,
Anthony

Dear Anthony, it is the miraculous Kursk-Root Icon of the Theotokos. One of my favorites.

Dear Diak,

Thank you for the name of the icon. I am thinking of getting a copy and adding it to my icon corner.

In Christ,
Anthony

Latin Trad stated:
"This view of Scripture was developed in the 19th century by German Protestants, and it has been discredited quite ably by such luminaries as Professor Tim Gray. Genesis is one, unified story. No part of it is less valuable than any other part. And it was written by Moses under Divine Inspiration, not by J, E, D, and P. Lt"

reply:
Well, Hallelujah!!! I'm so happy that someone wrote this. I'm sick to death of the Biblical Criticism crap! No Church Father would've made the ridiculous arguments that some so-called Biblical scholars now make. The concept of reducing Biblical interpretation solely to scientific method is a joke. Personally, I'd take an old illiterate monk's Biblical interpretation over that of 1,000 so-called scholars. And when they use their theories to try and interject disharmony or even contradiction within the message of God's word, e.g. using "J" against "P," etc. then it becomes not only stupid but also bordering on heretical. Excuse the vulgarity here but I once heard someone liken Biblical criticism to masturbation: there's alot of activity going on there but little fruit ever comes from it. That's what Biblical Criticism is: mental masturbation. God's message in "The Breath of God" (as we Armenians refer to it) doesn't need man's criticis but rather demands his humble acceptance.

I'm enjoying the thread here. Here are a few points I'll throw into the mix:

On another note, someone mentioned the Byzantine Liturgy's emphasis during the Mystery of Crowning. Well, I recently attended a Crowning Service (my sister-in-law married an Antiochene Orthodox Christian) and I was struck by the clear emphatic emphasis in their liturgy on the importance of openess to children in marriage. Its unmistakable. No one with their spiritual antenas still intact could miss it. I invite all to read the text and see this for themselves.

Finally, I think any Orthodox who defends contraception as something good or perfectly acceptable is manifesting a deep ignorance of the witness of the Fathers on this issue. Ofcourse, not all Orthodox do this. Some offer a much more balanced approach in recognition of this evidence. Also, I think we Orthodox can not approach this issue as dogmatically as do Roman Catholics. After all we have no Pope who has issued any infallible pronouncement on the issue; nor has any Council, Ecumenical or otherwise. I think -and my fellow Orthodox can correct me if I'm wrong- that the teaching on contraception must fall under the heading of "theologoumena."

Bishop Kallistos Ware in the book "How Are We Saved" explains this category of teaching:

"It is true that a theologoumenon is more than merely the private opinion or personal speculation of an individual author, for it signifies a teaching more or less widely maintained by the Fathers of the Church: yet certainly it lacks the binding character of a conciliar definition."

This sounds very akin to the Church's Traditional teaching on Contraception. Yet, any Orthodox who unabashedly affirms the soundness and goodness of contraception is simply off his rocker. There's no way anyone who takes seriously the teaching of the Fathers could advocate something so ridiculous. I think Fr. Thomas Hopko does a better job of presenting a more guarded and balanced attitude on the issue of contraception when he writes:

"According to the Orthodox teaching as expressed in the sacramental rite of marriage, the creation of children, and the care and love for them within the context of the family, is the normal fulfillment of the love of a man and woman in Christ. In this way, marriage is the human expression of the creative and caring love of God, the perfect Love of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity which overflows in the creation and care for the world. This conviction that human love, imitative of divine love, should overflow itself in the creation and care for others does not mean that the procreation of children is in itself the sole purpose of marriage and the unique and exclusive justification and legitimization of its existence. Neither does it mean that a childless couple cannot live a truly Christian life together. It does mean, however, that the conscious choice by a married couple not to have a family for reasons of personal comfort and accommodation, the desire for luxury and freedom, the fear of responsibility, the refusal of sharing material possessions, the hatred of children, etc., is not Christian, and can in no way be considered as consonant with the biblical, moral and sacramental teachings and experience of the Orthodox Church about the meaning of life, love and marriage.

"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."

-and again:

"Normally the sexual act in marriage bears fruit in the procreation of children. The marriage ceremony in the Church prays for 'chastity, a bed undefiled, the pro- creation of children, and for every earthly blessing that they may in turn bestow upon the needy.' The sexual act of love, however, is not limited merely to the bearing of children. It exists as well for the union in love and the mutual edification and joy of those who are married. If this were not the case, the Apostle Paul would not have given the following counsel:

...each man should have his own wife, and each wife her own husband. The husband should give the wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except per haps by agreement for a time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through each of self-control. (I Corinthians 7:2-5)

"The apostle does not say that the married couple should be separated and come together only with intentions of bearing a child. He says rather that they should stay together, separating 'by agreement, for a time,' and that for the purpose of being devoted 'to prayer.' The words 'by agreement' are central in this counsel, for each one must live totally as belonging to the other."

-and most importantly for our discussion:

"True love in marriage supposes the bearing of children. Those who truly love in marriage will naturally have children as the fruit of their love and the greatest bond of their union. Those who despise children and refuse to offer them care and devotion do not truly love.

"Of course there are those whose marriages will be childless because of some tragedy of nature brought on by the 'sin of the world.' In such marriages perfect love can exist, but the mutual devotion in the service of God and man will take on other forms, either the adoption of children or some other good service for the sake of others, The childless marriage, either by voluntary choice or natural tragedy, which results in self-indulgence is not a spiritual union."

"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."

"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."

taken from the so-called "Rainbow Series" http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/index.htm

-Hope this is helpful info.

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

I think the underlying problem that Latin Trad is revealing is that he really does see the position that I have put out as heretical. He is sincere.

The Western Church's penchant for this approach in the past is part of the reason that we are still divided.

For this reason, as added examples, those who don't see the Assumption and Immaculate Conception as dogmatic necessities are also termed "heretics."

The Eastern Church has also fallen into this trap now and again on various issues.

This does not bode well for future reunion.

We need to set out what are the essential required "dogmatic" beliefs and leave everything else to the councils of bishops to discern.

In Christ,
Andrew

Yes, Sharon!

Even if the sentiment did come from Aquinas, it was decidedly one not based upon experience. (Saints aren't infallible after all. They live with the same frailties and in the same world as we do. And, as you note later - the women Aquinas encountered were limited in society.)

I've been rather blissfully married for over 12 years. I doubt my husband would hold to such a sentiment as LT is quoting. And not because I'd smack my dear hubby with a frying pan if he expressed such sentiments - but because anyone who is married and works at it totally understands that the attached sentiment, derived from a great saint or not, is simply incorrect or, perhaps, misapplied.

That said: I am very interested in what Aquinas says about the nature of law (as I am a lawyer). His observations in that area were sheer inspiration and brilliance.

I've said what I had to say on this thread. I have done so, I hope, not out of a spirit of contentiousness, but out of concern for the truth in this regard.

I sincerely believe, aside from the "law" against contraception, that its ill effects have been well demonstrated by Janet Smith, One More Soul, etc.

I thank Ghazar for his support on Scripture, and I thank Andrew for his belief in my sincerity.

I return to the thread to defend/clarify the little quote from St. Thomas that I posted earlier.

I am not trying to say that Aquinas is binding on Eastern Christians--just trying to defend the man himself and his opinion in this regard.

Annie SFO wrote:
Okay.

All St. Thomas was arguing was that the nuptual, lifelong fellowship of man and woman has as its highest fulfillment the procreation and raising of children.

Although they perform many other tasks together and assist each other in many other ways, there is nothing that is more noble, or more proper to their state, than participation in God's creative work.

No one else can raise children, at least properly. Not through any other means would God choose to create human life.

That is not to reduce women to kid-producers. Nothing could be farther from St. Thomas' intention. Moreover, the alleged "limiations" and "repression" of women during the Christian centuries have nothing to do with this understanding of marriage. Man and Woman find their highest fulfillment in fatherhood and motherhood. Non-contraceptive motherhood tends to "limit" a woman--only in the sense that any vocation "limits" one. It limits her to freedom and joy in the fulfillment of God's design.

I too am married--not nearly as experienced as most of my fellow forumites, but married nonetheless--and I know darn well that woman is a perfect helpmate in many ways.

But, St. Thomas argues, the characteristic and chief reason for God's creating man and woman as the perfect complement to one another was not so they could fix the car together or make dinner together--althought they will assuredly do those things but so that God could create and nuture life through them.

Give St. Thomas a little credit.

LatinTrad

I thank Ghazar for the interesting quote from Fr Hopko. I was puzzled by this section. I've italicized the particular part that I want to focus on:

So, a Christian may make this decision before God, sad as it may be, and the "means of its implementation are arbitrary"?

From what I can ascertain this was written in 1981. At that point those Orthodox who were permitting contraception were not discriminating against the use of the Pill as it was not as well known that it can prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum. (This has changed in the past 15 years or so.)

I'm sorry. Some of what Fr Hopko writes really bothers me. He is concerned to be very compassionate but is willing to say "a decision for an abortion might be made" in the case of a youhg girl being raped:

http://oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/Meeting-the-Orthodox.html#19

As much as that tragedy would be (the rape), should it be compounded by counseling the permissibility of an abortion?

LT- I do give St Thomas a little credit. But just a little; about as much as he gave himself after his mystical experience, when he refused to write any more, saying "it is all straw". Of course, "straw" to someone who has experienced union with God may still prove profitable to the rest of us. Personally, I found St Thomas pretty dry even when I was Roman Catholic -I tended more toward the Bonaventurian and Scotist schools. I have since come to appreciate him and his grand project. Still you should realize that to many Eastern Christians, St Thomas represents all that tends to the dry and rationalistic in the West [never mind that he made a BIG impression on Easterns of previous generations].
And if you expect to gain respect for him, I suggest that you work on being less offensive; "heresy" is not an appropriate word to use in this discussion [and this from someone who didn't hesitate to call the American Episcopal Church "apostate" on another thread, which called down all sorts of wrath on my poor head].

Dear DTBrown,

You bring up some good points but hold on just a second!

I don't think that Fr. Hopko or any other serious Eastern Orthodox theologian is allowing abortion, but rather reinforcing the view that it is a kind of murder in all cases. (But remember, surgery to correct ectopic pregnancy which seeks to move the fetus from the fallopian tube and implant it in the womb, as well as surgery to remove a child who has died in utero, are not rightly termed "abortion.")

The previous thread (wherein Latin Trad and I almost killed each other ) brought this out: that most methods of birth control are potentially abortafacient and therefore completely prohibited and equivalent to abortive murder. You are right that this point was not really common knowledge in theological circles when Fr. Hopko wrote his piece. He probably would have been more specific. He was one of my teachers. He is neither a sloppy writer nor a sloppy lecturer.

However, the canonical pennance for murder and abortion are not the same! [Murder is 20 years and abortion is 10 [?](I don't have my books here to reference) years of excommunication and repentance, to be adjusted by bishop and presbyter according to the speed and depth of one's repentance.

Hence, we who see some rare windows whereby ABC could be accepted (my previous two examples in the beginning of this thread) should really be using the term "conception control," not "birth control." As we sadly know, abortion is also "birth control" of the most evil sort.

What the canons are saying in making these distinctions is that the Church recognizes that some motivations for sin are different than others; and perhaps motivations that are less heinous than others.

So to continue the comparison, killing men in battle is not considered murder, because the motivation is/may be to save one's country. One may not even have a great choice: "kill or be killed." Still the Church does not "justify" the soldier who kills in battle, but says to him to abstain and repent for three years. [Reading St. Basil, one can see that he wasn't comfortable with this, but accepted the distinction of his forefathers.]

Fr. Hopko's point, and the Church's point, is that the family that aborts the child produced by the rape of their 12 year old daughter is not doing the same thing as the man who executed two shopowners for a little cash in my part of Philadelphia about nine months ago (they just caught the #@$%^$ a week ago). Both are killing, both are murder, but still deserve distinction.

The commentators who fail to mention the serious canonical pennance that ought to be placed upon those who abort, as well as the presbyters and bishops who fail to apply the canon (adjusted according to each case, of course) are the ones who have given the impression that abortion may be "acceptable" in the Orthodox Churches. No sin is "acceptable." But some are worse that others. And we must consider the motivation behind each act of sin.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

To be fair, here is Fr Hopko's statement in its entirety:

I can understand a different approach to the hard cases in Confession...but this is different. This is saying "a decision for abortion might possibly be made." Is this the advice that should be given?

I would just like to state that Fr Hopko's stated opinion re: abortion in cases of rape is not widely held among Orthodox. For instance, at SVS, when we discussed abortion in my dogmatics class, we talked for about 45 minutes on why it is wrong, but then the professor (not Fr Hopko) made a statement in the form of a question similar to Fr Hopko's point of view ("We know it can never be right but for a traumatic case of rape can it ever be counseled?") In my class in 2002, there was widespread disbelief that the professor had even "gone there" and several people argued with him forcefully--he never turned his question into an affirmative statement. The next year, my friend reported that in his class, if I recall correctly, someone mentioned that she had been raped and kept the baby, and that the idea that murdering the baby will help the mother's mental status is pop psychology, not reality.

The consensus of the class was though that an abortion in a case of rape would certainly have less moral culpility as say an abortion "just becuase I wanted a boy" or something like that--even though both are sins (I think the RC Catechism makes distinctions on levels of culpibility for sins too, cf the section on masturbation).

I will be the first to admit that in my opinion some of the Orthodox ethicists can be a bit loose and I don't like that. It's one of the things that I think needs to be worked on in Orthodoxy.

Yours in Christ,

anastasios