www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Contraception

I appreciate your question, but I have to decline to answer it for a couple of reasons. 1) because I am not a spiritual Father and so it is not my place to give you any advice or suggestions as to what you should do and 2) I think that getting into the personal practices of the participants distracts from the objectivity of the discussion. The arguments stand or fall regardless of the practices of the people making them.

But, I would be happy to discuss things in a private PM if you wish to PM me, though this is really best something discussed with your spiritual Father if it is something having to do with actual personal practice, but I am not averse to sharing my personal experiences.

Joe

Im, very good post and good distinctions. As far as what you've posted regarding natural law as a participation in divine law, I think that is undeniably true. Now, exactly what the natural law is is not so clear and we should distinguish between the natural law itself and "theories of natural law." Divine revelation does not specify which theory of natural law is correct. I think that this is because the "natural law" as something that exists in itself is only an abstraction. Whatever natural law is in all human beings is already divine revelation, but divine revelation obscured by the fall and our wounded nature. So, it is not possible to have an accurate understanding of the natural law apart from divine revelation. I personally, think that the arguments of Humanae Vitae rest not on the natural law itself, illumined by divine revelation, but on a particular scholastic theory of what the natural law is. Your point on distinction between the Enlightenment versions of natural law (i.e. Locke, etc.) and the Thomist version is well taken.

On the question of the fact that there is always uncertainty when having sex during the "infertile period," I would say that this does not distinguish NFP from contraception. No form of birth control (other than complete abstinence) is entirely successful. Why couldn't a couple say, "Look, it would be best for us not to have a child right now, so we will use a condom; however, if there is a pregnancy, then we will welcome that child with open arms?" I don't see how that is fundamentally different than, "Look, it would be best for us not to have a child right now, so we will time things in such a way that we are virtually certain that no pregnancy will occur (indeed, we can be 99.4% certain according to some NFP counselors we've talked to), however if there is a pregnancy, then we will welcome the child with open arms." To me, to say that one is doing something that frustrates the procreative end of the act while the other one is not is just hair splitting. But this may be where the crux of the argument is and I suspect that in the end, this is likely the place where we are going to agree to disagree.

Joe

To answer the last first, quite literally, the two do not become one. Something is put in between them. And hence the unitive and procreative aspect are both violated.

You write:


I agree that it is not possible to have an accurate understanding of natural law from divine revelation. HV states:


If natural law is real law (I maintain it is) and if it is from God, then the Church has the authority and duty to to proclaim it.

As to the natural law, as Chrysostom states, the natural law is conscience. It has the real force of law--not a mere abstraction or theory. It is in fact why the Gentiles can be judged by it. Cardinal Newman calls conscience the aboriginal vicar of Christ. Its first precept is self-evident. Its very first principle, "do good and avoid evil" can never really be extinguished in the heart of man--corrupted perhaps--but not extinguished. By this I mean that whatever one does, one must see in it some aspect of good. Now the good may only be an apparent good, not a real good, but nonetheless you can't get around acting for the "good."

Aquinas says:



Sounds a lot like Chrysostom.


He also writes (here making deductions from what he observes which is what Chrysostom was doing):


When, however, the lawgiver is shunned, there are dire consequences:


Romans chapter 1.

In summary, I guess I don't see Paul, Chrysostom, Aquinas or HV talking about a "theory" but about real law.

Error. The sentence above should read:

I believe that it is not possible to have a correct understanding of natural law without revelation.

Joe,

A while back (I missed a lot by going to work yesterday!) you wrote that the Fathers were wrong on sex and contraception. Were they also wrong on warfare? His Beatitude Alexei named St. Fyodor Ushakov as the Patron Saint of the Russian Nuclear Bomber Fleet. This is also a 180 from the position of the Fathers.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070307/26203_God_Bless_the_Nukes.htm

It seems that the development of doctrine has to be affirmed, otherwise we don't have the Faith of Our Fathers.

Some of the Fathers on War:

http://www.tcrnews2.com/fathers_peace.html

I really hope you're not being serious. The west has a well developed just war theory, the East does not but certainly does not support the pacifist position. One need only look at the history, liturgies, iconography (anyone have a St. Demetrios on their wall?) and a fuller set of the Church Fathers to see this. Certainly there are quotes that support the pacifist position and could be used to condemn how both churches have developed. Much like contraception, except the case against any form of controlling conception is in my opinion much stronger among the church father's than it is to suppose they condemned just war.

There was actually a book written recently called "The Virtue of War" that in some ways was written I believe to counter the growing idea of the Eastern church being pacifist. A review is here - http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-09-040-f

It also seems to me Joe is asking some questions people are not actually addressing.

Dr. Eric, I find all of this fascinating actually. Were these early fathers wrong on war? I don't know. I am coming to realize that outside of the specific creedal issues decided by the council and what has been carried down as the normal teaching regarding various liturgical and spiritual matters (nature of the sacraments, etc.), there have always been conflicting opinions on various issues. I suspect that it is a temptation for us to romanticize the early Church and the fathers as if they always spoke with one mind about things. I know that when I first began reading Church history and apologetics, I had this erroneous view (mainly because I was reading works of apologetics). Now, I was reading the fathers, but most of my reading was from traditional apologetics works like those by Ott and Denzinger (which is a sourcebook), and by popular apologetics works. However, when I came to read the fathers on their own terms and study patristics in graduate courses, I came to realize that church history and theology is much more messy than I had anticipated. Really, it seems that there are at least two plausible hypotheses regarding the nature of church doctrine.

Either there is no development of doctrine and all Conciliar teaching is just a clarification of what Christians have always believed or there is a development of doctrine in the sense understand by Catholic theologians today. The problem I have is that when I read the magisterial documents of the Roman Church and I delve into such things as the history of papacy as an institution, the history of sex and marriage in the Christian churches, the history of Church state relations, I do not see an organic development in all cases. I see outright contradictions and reversals of teaching in a number of cases. My own conclusion from this is that the Orthodox approach makes more sense, that as few Dogmas should be defined as possible and that the apostolic rule of faith is in, some sense, very simple and not comprehensive (it doesn't touch every issue under the sun). Obviously there is some kind of doctrinal development, in a minimal sense, otherwise there would have never been any need for councils and discussions to begin with. But it makes more sense to say that doctrinal development is simply the making more clear the expression of what is contained in the apostolic rule of faith. Development of doctrine shouldn't mean the addition of new teachings that allegedly have some kind of organic connection with more primitive teachings. What is the significance of this?

Well, either there is just war or there is not. One can't say that the Church, at one time, taught definitely that Christians could not participate in war and then later "developed" it's doctrine to say, "well, we really meant unjust war."

Either there is the right to hold and publicly express one's religious views in society (freedom of religion) or there is not. One can't hold that prior to Vatican II, the Church definitely taught that "freedom of religion" was a heresy and altogether contrary to faith, but that Vatican II organically develops the Church's doctrine to say that "freedom of religion" is a fundamental right of man. Either usury is wrong or it is not. One cannot say that the church has always definitely taught that all usury is wrong and then say that while this originally meant "all taking of interest" it is now developed to mean "the taking of excessive interest." And there are a number of other issues. Each one of these issues I mentioned would need its own thread and my intention is not to start discussions on them here. I only mention them as examples of the difficulties that led to a change in my thinking.

I must confess that I am much more tolerant and sympathetic with protestantism now. I am not a protestant, don't misunderstand me. And, I do not claim that protestantism qualifies as being Christ's church or that it doesn't need to be corrected. But I can understand how an intelligent protestant person can study Church history intensively and remain within a protestant confession.

So, within the context of Catholicism and Orthodoxy today, we have to ask the question you ask, "Has the Church developed its teaching on sex and birth control?" It has already been mentioned that no Church today officially teaches what the fathers held on this issue. The position of the early Church is pretty straightforward. Sex was for the purpose of procreation. For most of the fathers, this was its only legitimate purpose, though there were exceptions such as St. John Chrysostom. All of the fathers condemned contraception. But they also condemned intentionally having sexual relations during the infertile period. The only option for married couples was complete abstinence. Sexual relations among older couples were discouraged by most fathers and prohibited by some. Sex to relieve concupiscience was permissible, but in the eyes of many at least venially sinful. The fathers all condemned contraception because they saw it as equivalent to homicide (or worse), because they considered only two motives for sex (procreation and lust), and because most contraception was associated with magical spells and potions. Sex during pregnancy was also condemned and was specified as a way of possibly harming the fetus. While it was permissible (though imperfect or venially sinful) for a married couple to engage in relations from motives other than procreation, it was gravely sinful to engage in relations with the intention of avoiding procreation. They would not have distinguished between methods.

So, if the doctrine has developed, then we must say that on the whole, the fathers didn't get the Church's teaching on sex quite right. They were too severe. But I find it difficult to see the permission to use NFP as an organic development of doctrine. Rather, I think it is easier to say that there were common attitudes in the early Church but no definitive doctrine (that was irreformable). We look to the Ecumenical Councils, the Canons of the Church, and what is clearly universal, without exception and received universally in the Church as the norm. All we know about the condemnation of contraception comes from the personal writings of the fathers. No Ecumenical or local council seems to address it. There are several councils that do address the issue of whether all sex is sinful and those councils rule that the marital embrace is intrinsically good. My view is that it is not clear what the teaching on contraception should be. Given the complexity of the issue, I think that the general Orthodox approach today is correct, namely, to leave the issue to the conscience of the couple under the guidance and blessing of their spiritual father. If a Pan Orthodox council decides to condemn all contraception, then so be it. But, until then, I think there is room for a variety of views since we have no infallible ordinary magisterium. It is true that Rome does have an infallible ordinary magisterium (or at least claims to), but the contradictions in what that magisterium has taught throughout history have led me to reject it as binding. I think that the universal Christian tradition (both Orthodox and Catholic) is clear that sexual relations are to be between man and woman in a state of holy matrimony. Any other engagement in sexual relations is sinful. But, I don't see the question of regulating the procreative end of sex as definitely settled.

Joe

Once again, I have to protest. For those of you who have not taken graduate courses or read the fathers, this is not uniformly believed or taught. I would rather Joe admit that this is his opinion and that is one on which scholars disagree rather than keep stating it as absolute fact.

Father bless,

I have not run across any other positions. Are there any fathers who suggest that it is permissible to use what we would call today NFP? I haven't seen it and I haven't seen a scholary study that shows it. I would be interested in what other positions would have been held and what the evidence is for it though.

Joe

When I finally have time (will that time ever come), I will try to chart it for you (with sources). But for now, let me suggest that you begin to look at what the Copts have written on the subject. I think the problem is that as westerners we tend to read patristic documents differently than those who read them from more semitic backgrounds. I have found Copt interpretations of the fathers on this subject most illumining!

Father bless,

Thank you, that would be fascinating! And I bet you are right too. I have noticed that in the scholarly literature in patristics, there is too much of a focus on the Greek and Latin traditions at the expense of othe semitic traditions. Perhaps, it could be because the Copts and the Oriental Orthodox Churches represent their own communion with their own special theology. If the Coptic fathers have advocated something like NFP, then that is really important. Thanks again.

Joe

I also wanted to note that the phrase "except for Chrysostom" is highly significant. As one of the Cappadocians, etc., this is such an important exception that I wonder how you can say "the Fathers teach ..." If he did not teach it, then that exception is so huge I don't see how you can say "the fathers teach ..."

It would be like saying "the Mack family believes ..., except for the mom and dad ..." Without the mom and dad, can there be a Mack family? So too without Chrysostom, can there be a "fathers teach"?

Father bless,

Fair enough. Your point is well taken. But, if we push this just a little, then we would have to say that we can almost never say "The fathers teach..." You can look at almost every issue and find two fathers who disagree with one another. When I use the expression, "The fathers teach..." I really mean, "It was the prevelant view..."

Joe

Yet, that is how this whole topic is typically presented to us. One of the chief fallacies of the arguments in my opinion.

Precisely -- that is exactly what I am saying. I think it is a misuse of scholarship to EVER say that "the fathers teach ..." I think it is also a misuse of scholarship to say "the majority of fathers teach ..."

This is true for many reasons -- here are the two I find most convincing:

1) We do not have all of the writings/teachings of the fathers.
2) We do non usually consult the non-Greek/non-Latin fathers.

To me, this illustrates the absolute necessity of the Magisterium and the is one fundamental reason I could no longer live my Orthodox spiritual and sacramental life outside of communion with the Pope of Rome.

Without a Magisterium and a theological ceter, everything devolves and ultimately nothing can be said.