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

Dr. Eric, I'm sorry if it appears I'm picking on your posts. I am not trying to do that, but you are saying things that I think help illustrate what I think the issues are.

I disagree with your statement vis-a-vis Catholic laity and contraception. It is one topic that I find among lay Catholics that there is actually a fairly apparent awareness of what that church says is right and wrong.

The fact that the laity do not care is one issue. My feeling is, and it is getting born out by your statements, that the hierarchy and parish priests aren't ignorant of what they (the laity) are or are not doing. They are looking the other way. If your statement is true that this never comes up in confession, and the church says this is a grave moral evil, then I have to say that to me this is essentially unconsciounable.


They could get very specific.

Yes indeed. St. Clement of Alexandria thinks that the husband and wife should do all that is in their power to remain "cool and detached" during intercourse so that they don't sin like beasts. There really is a basis for the widespread conception that Christianity is anti-sex. That is because there have been a large number of Christian writers throughout history that really were anti-sex in a way that is not far off from some of the parodies you occasionally see.

Joe

Here is a passage from St. Ambrose, quoted in Noonan, "Contraception" p.79.

"Youths generally assert the desire of having children and think to excuse the heat of their age by the desire for generation. How much more shameful for the old to do what is shameful for the young to confess. For even the young who temper their hearts to prudence by divine fear, generally renounce the works of youth when progeny have been received. And is this remarkable for man, if beasts mutely speak a zeal for generating, not a desire for copulating? Indeed, once they know the womb is filled, and the seed received by the generative soil, they no longer indulge in intercourse or the wantonness of love, but they take up parental care. Yet men spare neither the embryo nor God. They contaminate the former and exasperate the latter. 'Before I formed you in the womb,' He says, 'I knew you and sanctified you in your mother's womb.' To control your impatience, note the hands of your Author forming a man in the womb. He is at work, and you stain with lust the secret of the sacred womb? Imitate the beast or fear God. Why do I speak of beasts? The land itself often rests from the work of generating, and if it is often filled with the seeds thrown by the impatient eagerness of men, it repays the shamelessness of the farmer and changes fertility to sterility. So even in the elements and the beasts it is a shame to nature not to cease from generating."

Joe,

I fail to see how both of the passages you quote indicate a lack of appreciation for the beauties of love within marital intercourse. What both fathers are condemning is lust. I would hope that all Christians today would condemn lust in marriage -- whether it is at the kitchen table or in the bedroom! I love my wife tremendously, but at the same time I endeavor not to sin against her by becoming "like the beasts" in my approach to her. I try to remain "cool and detached" so that I can love her for who she is rather than simply wanting to take from her what I can get.

I would add that we must be careful not to accept the definitions of scholars about the meaning of the fathers without interpreting those fathers in the context of patristic spiritual theology. As I have noted, I am in favor of scholarship and think it has a lot to teach us. But I also realize that many scholars are clueless as to the theological spirituality that undergirds many of the fathers' statements.

For example to state that couples should remain passionless in sexual intercourse must be interpreted within an eastern context. I would submit that it does not mean what many scholars think it does!

In terms of Ambrose, to what extent is his advice based on a faulty understanding of human embryonic development and to what extent is it based on his understanding of sex, etc. I also note that many fathers seem to assume that women who are pregnant do not desire sex and thus interpret the man's desire to have sex with his pregnant wife as an example of lust. (On the other hand, how often are pregnant women hounded by their husbands for sex? Too often, I am afraid.) If, we now know that the child is not harmed (while God is forming it, etc.) then does change how we interpret Ambrose's advice? If the woman desires to have intercourse (unlike the female beasts) then does that change Ambrose's advice? I think it probably does -- what do you think?

AMM,

I didn't think that you were picking on me. But as a physician, I have to discipline myself to be as accurate as possible. (They have other physicians at the insurance companies who are worse than the IRS guys and all they do is pick one's notes apart for inaccuracies and errors so that they can get their money back! )

I have only spoken openly about this to one priest who is shall we say very outspoken on the issue. And he says that he knows for a fact that people who come up for Communion are contracepting, and they even go so far as to tell him in the confessional an hour prior that they will not give it up and still present themselves at the Sanctuary!

He says that he cannot refuse as the rule in the Latin Church is that no one, unless a grave public sinner, is refused the Eucharist. The Latin Church could learn from the Orthodox, in my opinion.

What the heck is "Telo"? Please explain that to me.

I wanted to make a comment, which is in no way intentionally offending anyone, I'm just being blunt, mainly out of frustration.

I'm infuriating frustrated with the fact the Churchs (RCC, BCC and Orthodox) don't seem to iron out differences on sexual morality! The world is committing moral and spiritual suicide, and it's shrinking also in spite of population growth. What are we doing??? Are we going to wait until it's too late when everything's all dead? WE NEED to work things out.

The Catholic Church may have some imperfections, but at least the CC has the GUTS to go against the world and be upfront about issues. I laud the late Pope Paul VI for writing the HV (even imperfect) in spite of mass numbers of people leaving the Church, that shows courage to try to live the Gospel of Life against the world (not being "of the world").

The Orthodox on the other hand has shown their LACK of unifying voices and constantly swaying on moral revelatisim....which to me is more disgusting.

The majority of Catholics may not accept the Church's positions on sexual morality, at least it's in the "books" (meaning "official" teaching) whereas there's nothing the Orthodox "books," at least not in FULL unifying voices.

Please shed some of your thoughts on my thoughts. So I can try to understand better about why things are the way they are.

I fully agree with him...it's kinda ironic that the RCC are "shoving people's throats" about Catholic teaching on Eucharist to counter-attack lack of belief by doing Holy Hour devotions, Blessed Sacrament devotions, rubrics, etc....but not really guarding the Communion to those who commit serious sins.

The Orthodox Church carefully guards communion...even to the point if there is an Orthodox visitor in the Orthodox Church, he/she MUST show proof that he/she is Orthodox before receiving Communion.

SP,

How is the Orthodox Church's teachings on sexual morality not countercultural? The Orthodox Church definitively teaches sex between a man and woman in the state of holy matrimony is the only morally legitimate form of sexual behavior. The Church also prescribes that spouses fast from relations during the fasting seasons and on the eve before receiving holy communion. If that is not countercultural then I don't know what is.

Also, even among Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers who say that there are permissible uses of contraception, none of them are gung-ho about it. I don't hear anyone in the Orthodox Church saying that you can use contraception any time you want for any reason you want. Natural intercourse for the sake of procreation is still the ideal.

The reason there isn't unequivocal unity among the Catholic and Orthodox Churches on issues like sexual morality has to do with different theological assumptions. Even with the differences though, the teachings of the two Churches are not radically differently. They are very close. Really, the only thing separating the two churches on sexual morality, as far as I can tell, is the issue of which forms of birth control are acceptable. The charge that the Orthodox teach moral relativism is, of course, absurd.

Joe

Let's not turn this into a Catholic vs. Orthodox slugfest. Especially, let's not do it over issues that have nothing to do with the thread. I am discussing this in order to be challenged, to learn a thing or two from others, and to offer my own reflections (for what they are worth). Thank you.

Joe

Hello JSMelkiteOrthodoxy,

I appreciate your response on that. I have some sigh of relief hearing some things you said.

Now, IF the Orthodox Church condemns all kinds of family planning (both natural and artificial), then why do some Orthodox Church say that they "tolerates" contraceptives?

Isn't that the lack of unifying voices? One has to admit that the Orthodox Church lacks unifying voices. That comment here is no way demeaning the Church. The Catholic Church has her own faults as well that we have to admit too. Admitting problems is the first step to solving it, huh?

I just need to know how firm the Orthodox Church is on many issues especially contraceptives and other major issues before I make any personal decisions.

Thanks.

Why does everything have to be legalistic? What does everything have to be so cut and dry? The Orthodox Church allows contraception in some cases while it does not allow them in others. It is not right for every family. It all depends on you individual situation and the blessing of your Parish Priest. Why do you want Big Brother telling you exactly what to do all the time? Is it some kind of complex?

This might offend some people, but Catholics talking about sexual morality at this point is laughable at best. Solve the GLARING problems in your Church before trying to teach the Orthodox what is moral and what is not.

My dear Borislav,

Perhaps, then, the Orthodox ought to solve the schisms and problems in their own communion before telling Catholics about ecclesiology.

Come on. You can do better than this. Your second paragraph is shameful, and I am offended.

Karl,

I agree with you. Folks, let's just stick to the issue and not use the discussion to take cheap shots at each other's church. It would be a shame for the thread to deteriorate and end up being closed. I have found this both challenging and stimulating and I'd like to continue the discussion without polemics.

Joe

We can talk all we like about what the fathers of the church wrote, what is licit and illicit, all of whihc is important, but God's mercy may on the odd occasion be accessed by those who have done the odd illicit thing; so whilst we should not make moral law on the basis of expecting/encouraging dispensation or sin, we should also in our conversation present discussions of that law in the light of St. Pauls theory that law should not be set so high as to cause a brother to stumble (1 Cor 10 or thereabouts).

Ned

Sorry about that my friend, but the recent flood of anti-orthodox threads attacking some of our Patriarchs and the Monks of Athos have left me feeling quite a big angered.

Sorry again for offending you.

But by that rationale you answer is no better than my post. 2 Wrongs don't make a right.