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

If pastoral economy is so important to Orthodoxy then why do some Orthodox faithful so roundly chide the papal Church for mitigating fasts, and offering the faithful the opportunity to participate personally in the choosing of penetential acts?

Is this not a double standard?

Also I am not at all understanding why I must stop teaching my children moral right and wrong, because I am a sinner?

Who is so blameless that they may then rightfully teach others how to live a moral life?

To take the position taken in an earlier post here makes a joke out of Apostolic succession itself...unless Orthodoxy teaches that the apostles were all sinless, as was the Son of God and the Theotokos.

Mary

Dear Borislav,

Of course. I welcome Orthodox input into discussions of ecclesiology; I was being ironic.

Not to be sarcastic or anything, but throughout history the peopole have suffered invasions of other ethnic groups, like the Mongols, Moors, etc. and I wonder what the Europeans would look like today if the women had not practiced some form of contraception under these circumstances?

Whenever I have attended an Orthodox parish away from home, I am never asked for proof that I am an Orthodox Christian when I go up to receive Holy Communion. The priest usually tells the people that only Orthodox can receive and it is up to the people to be honest. Maybe other Orthodox Christians have had different experiences, but no priest ever asked me for proof of my chrismation.

Whoa whoa whoa folks...let's cool...

I did NOT attack Orthodox Church or did I ever mean it. I've also included comments about the Catholic Church...to give fairness to both...because both are not perfect.

If I ever upset anyone or offend anyone, I genuinely apologize...and ask for forgivness. I was just being blunt.

I am SOOOO comfortable with Orthodoxy that it's my home also...so that's why I feel comfortable to say things openly. That's how close I feel with Orthodoxy. Just know that I've made comments about Catholicism...so don't think I'm singling Orthodox out. The reason I say more things about Orthodoxy because I geniunely CARE. I am VERY frustrated with the Catholic Church that I kinda don't care that much anymore...because I'm disgusted about many things...it's sad. I dunno...anyway....

Now...I wanted to say few things about Borislav saying that Orthodox permits contraception for certain people...

First...isn't it Christ Jesus that said in the lines of "say yes when you mean yes, say no when you mean no."??? My point is that the Church needs to make up the mind.

Because in reality, the Church is really a "fit for all" no matter what size. G-d is pretty much black and white. There's no grey area. He is a JUST G-d...not a "grey area G-d." It's either Heaven or Hell...there's no in between (now..."Toll Houses" or "Purgatory" are NOT the "in between" or "grey area." That is separate.).

Soo...it's either you steal something or you don't. Either you kill or not kill. Either this or that. Isn't that black and white? So the Church must behave the same way...after all isn't she the Bride of Christ? That the Church must follow the example of Christ? Huh?

And secondly...someone mentioned earlier in this post...that the early Church fathers condemned contraception...BOTH natural (meaning NFP) and artificial (pills, barriers, etc.)...so then WHY do the Orthodox Church "tolerates" contraception and allow it for certain people? That's not right.

I can say the same thing about the Catholic Church tolerating NFP. But if I stop and think about it...I don't really believe that the CC ever mean to tolerate "contraception mentality" for those who practice NFP...in fact I think the Humane Vitae condemned it. But in reality...isn't NFP abstaining from sex? Isn't it the same thing as abstaining from food from midnight til after Communion in liturgy? Isn't that "calculating" time...midnight on? So in same way...NFP can be "calculating" just like food fasting for communion. Why not fast from food 11pm? Or 1am? Or one hour before? or what...so...that's what I'm trying to point out...

I dunno...

Some folks made very good point about NFP...that in reality shouldn't be tolerated either...I totally understand where the posters here are coming from...

It's good discussion for Church leaders to have...because it's important...because we're living in a world now with NO moral compass and living in worse sexual revolution than ever before...even more than the '60s or '20s. Sad.

I can't believe I'm losing one hour of sleep! So I better get to bed! ha. G-d bless.

Regarding the generally accepted purposes of sex - the unitive and the procreative - I would appreciate a little more insight as to what is meant by "unitive." Is it the mutually facilitated emotional and psychological well-being of the partners? (If so, for many couples, NFP might be the perfect plan to miss both targets!)

Was HV the first church document that added this element to the mix? Has the term been defined anywhere?

Perhaps the "dual-purpose explanation" could be fairly re-stated as, "Sex between a man and a woman has an objective purpose as well as a subjective purpose." This paraphrase would be a pretty slippery slope, unless you really are comfortable letting the couple choose its own bedroom behaviors.

At any rate, if unity is now fundamental to our understanding and doctrine of sexuality, we'd better know what is being referred to.

Dear LAIG,

You are exactly correct. I just have a few minutes here, but I think "unitive" cannot be understand as merely a subjective feeling. I have subjective feelings of unity with lots of things that it would be inappropriate for me to marry!

Unitive must refer to an objective unity, something that doesn't depend merely on feelings. This isn't to say that feelings aren't involved, simply that they aren't constitutive.

Much as I agree with the doctrine re-emphasized in Humanae Vitae, I think its presentation leaves much to be desired. HV is the shining moment in the career of a weak Pope, and he could have done much better.

Karl,

I agree with you. And I see two things in HV that have to be clarified or explained. First, the notion of a "unitive" end of marriage is ambiguous and needs greater definition. I think that there has been some good reflection on this both in Pope John Paul II's 'Theology of the Body' and in the works of some Orthodox authors. The key, I think, is reflection on the creation of man and woman in Genesis 2. We must see that the reason God made eve was because "it is not good for man to be alone." This alone suggests to me that the procreative end is not the primary end of marriage, but a secondary end. Now, it still may be an intrinsic end, I'm not saying it isn't. But, the biblical evidence really doesn't point to the notion that God instituted marriage for the sake of procreation.

There is another factor that needs to be mentioned. Many of the important fathers taught that sex was instituted because of the fall. St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximos the Confessor reflect on this extensively. They hold that Adam was originally a hermaphrodite and that God took the female part of him out to create a separate being. This means that, in a manner similar to the Empedocles' myth told in Plato's "Symposium", man seeks out woman because he is incomplete in himself. Also, they taught that this was done in light of the fall and had there been no fall, there would be no reproduction (or there would have been reproduction only through a unity of spirit, but not bodies). We cannot deny that there are semi-gnostic leanings even in many of the Orthodox fathers (note that I didn't say most or all fathers; I am also excluding the syriac fathers and those from the Coptic tradition that I don't know much about).

Also, up until recently, the Roman Catholic Church taught definitively that the procreative end of marriage was the primary end of marriage and that mutual assistance and relief from concupiscience were secondary ends. It seems that prior to HV, the "unitive" function of marital sex is primarily in the promotion of fidelity and relief of concupiscience (in other words, to prevent adultery). It is undeniable that, on the whole the mainstream Roman and Byzantine traditions see procreation as the only truly positive purpose for marriage. We also have to keep mind that in 'Casti Conubi', Pope Pius XI indicated that complete continence was the only alternative to regular marital relations. The explicit permission of NFP is given for the first time, non-authoritatively in a locution of Pius XII to midwives and authoritatively in HV. Also, the notion promoted by many NFP counselors today that NFP promotes the unitive end of marriage is relatively new and would have been considered absurd by many prior to the post-Vatican II era.

So, it is really a puzzle as to what to do with this unitive aspect of the marital embrace. I think that the reflections in 'Theology of the Body' can be fruitful. The notion of 'gift of self' holds a lot of potential fruitfulness within it. But, then we still have to explain what that means in terms that are not arbitrary or bound up with subjective impressions (if that is possible). I respect Pope John Paul II's phenomenology, but in what I've read, I find moments where there seems to be arbitrary, or at least subjective interpretations of what is going on in the marraige. I can elucidate on this more if you all wish. I think it would be interesting to discuss. Anyway, it is good to see the discussion moving back on topic and away from hurling accusations at the various churches. I hope it stays that way.

Joe

The RCC considers the marital embrace a sacrament. It seems that instead of the somewhat fuzzy concept of "unity," the second primary purpose of sexual union would be "a means of extending sacramental grace" to the spouse.

Now this is really interesting. So, the RCC holds that the actual act of marital relations is a sacrament and not just the state of marriage being a sacrament. I have yet to see a Church father who would accept this. Indeed, the Byzantine and Roman fathers who seem to have the most influence on Church teachings regarding sex often considered the continent marriage the superior one. Also, as has been pointed out, it was usually expected that those couples past childbearing age should stop having relations and there were canonical penalties for those who engaged in the act during pregnancy and menstration. In terms of these particular writers who held to such things, this seems to be a 180. I, myself, have no problem with the view that he marital embrace is sacramental. I think it is biblical and the bible even elevates the joy in the embrace itself above the procreative end (the bible says virtually nothing about the procreative end of marriage being a duty. The only explicit biblical statement I have found involves the creation story in Genesis 1. And even there it is a blessing, not a command, "be fruitful and multiply," since the same blessing is given to all of creation and plants and animals do not have free will to do their duty). I am getting some recommendations from Father PJ though, so perhaps there is some evidence in the Syriac traditions that would show a very different trajectory in patristic thinking. I certainly hope so. That would be fascinating. At the end of the day, I think that extending the sacramental grace to the spouse is the primary end of marriage, the one truly inseperable end, whereas the procreative end is a secondary end, intrinsic to the marital state as a whole, while not necessarily intrinsic to each act.

By the way, here is an interesting question. The Church marries people who turn out to be infertile, with the reasoning that infertility, in this case, is accidental and the couple would strive to have children if it were possible. But, what justification is there for elderly people getting married if it is, in fact, impossible for them to procreate? In the ancient Church, such a thing would be actively discouraged, if not forbidden. Yet, it seems to be okay today, even "cute." This is an interesting puzzle to ponder. I, myself, am all for elderly people getting married.

Joe

I may have overstated the case: the catechism says (1601) that the "(marriage) covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament," but not necessarily that each individual act confers the sacrament. Still, sexual consummation is the sine qua non of a valid (let alone sacramental) marriage.

1643: "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspirition of the spirit and of will. It AIMS at a deeply personal UNITY, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul."

How does one "objectively" evaluate to what extent one is achieving these lofty aims? Words like "personal," "heart" and "soul," all sound fairly subjective to me.

WOW! This is incredible discussion. I'm learning this as I go. Wow. I appreciate Melkite Orthodoxy for his contribution to this discussion...thank you.

Now...yes, Theology of the Body is an excellent reflection on the meaning of human sexuality and marriage. For many years I thought human sexuality means sex...but from the TOB, human sexuality really basically means "personhood." (I.E. What it means to be a man. What it means to be a woman, and even what it means to be a Christian, etc.). When I discovered that...that really changes my thinking...like "WOW!" I am now able to appreciate being a Christian...and it elevates the understand what it means to be a Christian because of what Christ has done to us (Church as the Bride).

Now...I'm now just thinking based on this discussion here...so...marriage is the convenant between two persons...that G-d joined male-female as one...spiritually as well as physically...so that means the conjugal acts (sex) is actually the visible manifestation of the spiritual union with each other. (invisible union made visible union)

So now with that point of view, I'm now able to recognize the fact that the contraception is the physical manifestation of physical barrier between the couple...so that means whatever is happening on the outside (body) must be happening as well as inside (soul/spirit) or vice-versa? Would it be safe to say that?

A friend one time told me what she thought about what it means to use a condom...it's as if one is saying, "Oh, honey, I love with you with all my might...BUT I have to 'protect myself from you'." With that statment, it does show a good analogy of what's really happening between the relationship between two people...it becomes more selfish.

So, with the emphasis of "self giving" concept of TOB, it would indeed be much better to say that we shouldn't be doing any barriers or contraception and even the "contraception mentality NFP" at all. So, I hope and pray that Both Churches (Catholic & Orthodox) will one day firmly declare that...even perhaps make joint declaration on that which is important so that everyone is on the same page on sexual morality which this world is sorely in need of great guidance of.

S

SP, yes I think you are right. If we are looking for some quality or aspect of the person that corrolates to "unity" then we are grasping at straws. The person, in his essential spiritual reality, is irreducible. I think that this means that to look for subjective and objective aspects to the unity of the marital act is to engage in an activity that is mistaken. The unity shared by the couple is also irreducible. It can only be felt, it can't be described.

Joe

SP,

Some very good thoughts there. Of course, condoms literally do put up a barrier at the physical level, but whether they essentially constitute a barier to unity I don't know. The pill is a different story of course as is NFP. By why only condemn "contraceptive mentality" NFP? Unless, you want to say that all use of NFP to avoid pregnancy is part of the 'contraceptive mentality' (which I maintain that it is). I've heard many say that when one contracepts, one is saying "I withhold my fertility from you, I hold back something from myself." Well, how is NFP different? Isn't NFP saying "I will only have relations with you during this time of the month, when I know it is highly unlikely that conception will occur, therefore, I am withholding my fertility from you.?" I honestly don't see a difference between other non-abortifacient methods of contraception and NFP. One is simply using a calendar and thermometer instead of chemistry or latex.

But, I personally think that the whole notion of sexual activity being a kind of "language of the self" to be reaching a bit. Reproduction is a biological process and I don't see why two people can't "withhold" or postpone this biological process and still have true unity. There are all sorts of bodily aspects and biological processes of myself that I don't share with anyone and I assure you that they are thankful for it . If the gift of self is something irreducible, then we simply can't make any categorical statements about particular bodily functions and how essential they are to be a part of the "gift".

Joe

Hello Melkite Orthodoxy...

Well...not all NFP practices are of "contraception mentality" because if one can recall Paul VI's HV saying that there should be a "VERY SERIOUS" reason for abstaining sex (NFP) like serious financial reason, maybe even health reason or something.

So...some people using NFP can have contraception mentality...but NOT all...so it isn't fair to generalize NFP as all as being of the "contraceptive mentality."

Besides that...it's NFP isn't even contraceptive per se at all because there is minimum chance for any conception during that time.

Contraception is like a "dare game" when the time a woman is fertile...VERY likely to conceive...and the couple is playing with fire by withholding fertility DURING that time.

To me, marriage should be OPEN to each other including each other's fertility...and NOT inhibit it.

I mean, COME ON! If a man and a woman gets together...bam...a baby. Ya know? Contraception is like saying that the bullet won't hit the wall even after the gun is shot...it's impossible for it to not happen because it already happened. So what I'm saying...G-d made our bodies the way it is...if a man and a woman gets together...it's probably to produce a baby...there's no stopping the nature because it's the way it is. We shouldn't go against the nature that G-d made us to be.

Contraception is playing "G-d" just like the devil lied to Eve about the apple.

In my POV...during the time a woman can conceive...I feel that G-d's hand is on her womb during that time in case of any conception...so contra-cepting is cheating not only the couple and the potential baby but also to G-d who is waiting to BLESS the world with a new life.