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

Don,

That view (`it's best left to the couple and their spiritual father') was what allowed the use of the Pill for decades in some Orthodox jurisdictions. Also, there are many Orthodox who would reject the idea that allowance of contraceptives is "the stand of Orthodoxy."

As Fr John notes in The Stephanos Project there are some Orthodox theologians who reject the traditional rejection of contraceptives for fear of `following Rome.' However, instead, these theologians are following some Roman Catholic theologians in their rejection of the traditional position.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Why is it so hard to see that all intentional contraception is sinful in nature? Perhaps because it is the truth.

It would be so much easier to disregard this truth and use contraception, but God will not allow that.

I think this exemplifies one small example of the troubles of not having a united voice within Orthodoxy. Every spiritual father, every bishop, every jurisdiction, every Church has different criteria, standards, and regulations concerning this all-important issue.

ChristTeeen287

Of course, the question of necessity depends on if martial relations is a normal and natural part of the couple's life in addition to its reproductive function. Orthodoxy (and Protestantism) have a different history on this than Catholicism.

On Dave's posts, he's lost me on the double and tripe negatives. I would just offer that it cannot be said that Orthodoxy as whoel rejects responsible use of contraception nor views it as a matter for universal encylicals rather than private, pastoral guidence.

Currently, Orthodox Christians have the highest abortion rates of any religion. In some locales, the Orthodox Church is cooperating with contraceptive programs to reduce the rate of abortion. And yes, these programs are proving successful.

Axios

Dustin,

The "rhythm" method (talking about the timing of the female's cycle) was the mid-60's NFP. That was what was taught.

As for all contraception being evil, NFP is contraception. Or, I suppose taking your temperature every morning upon waking is natural and is what all Christians did during the first millenium?

Nextly, if NFP is 99% effective, that means people using condoms are more open to having children since they are using a method that is less effective. Of my Protestant friends who conceived while using unnatural family planning, they all went through and had the child--they weren't any less open to children.

Lastly, has anybody ever had their wife hooked up to IV feedings for 7 months while she was pregnant because she couldn't keep any food down. My wife was on chemotherapy drugs at $6 a pill (after insurance) twice daily so that she might be able to keep down one meal out of every half dozen and might be able to keep some fluids down. If it wasn't for modern technology, she would be dead right now. I guess it's totally natural to be hooked up to IVs and throwing up several times a day for 7-9 months--but dread doing anything to stop that situation. I can kill a person for a just reason, but I can't prevent a conception for a just reason?

Moronikos,

Your accusations are not novel and have been rebuttled by Catholic apologists many times over. If I remember correctly, there was an interesting thread on this topic on this forum around late August or early September. I'll look for it...

Ok I searched the back-threads and couldn't find it; I'll have to resort to finding something else online.

Ok, found some links...

Normal, thorough link: http://www.rushman.org/nfp1.html

Conglommeration (sp) of info on NFP: http://www.catholicgoldmine.com/nfp.html

EWTN's Q&A area on NFP: http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/forum11.htm

ChristTeen287

Dave Ignatius said:
I'm aware of the OCA priest you referenced but really thought he was definitely in the very small minority. Is the anti-contraception stance bigger in Orthodoxy than I thought?

Eric,

I don't have any statistics on "anti-contraception" Orthodox. From what I've seen they are a minority. I did receive a note today from one Orthodox priest who suggested that the OCA priest who I referenced earlier in this thread should submit to the ruling of the Holy Synod on this matter (the 1992 statement permitting artificial birth control).

We routinely hear statements such as `Orthodoxy has a different history on this than Catholicism.' Fr John has, in my opinion, proved the opposite. The only response I've heard to his comments so far is that he should submit to the Holy Synod. I'd be interested in hearing a critique of Fr John's articles from those who hold the opposite position.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Obviously, the "anti-contraception" Catholics are a minority as well, but luckily that didn't stop the Church from proclaiming contraception to be sinful and immoral.

I did not know about this 1992 conference, and it is sad to hear the outcome. I hope the anti-contraception mentality grows among both the Orthodox and the Catholics.

ChristTeen287

ChristTeen is right that a majority of Catholics and a majority of Orthodox seem not to object to responsible use of contraception. Where we differ is the official stances of our respective communions, where Catholicism condems contraception while Orthodoxy does not.

Obviously, one can find Orthodox with differing viewpoints, just as I have known of Episcopal Bishops who are anti-contraception and we have Orthodox Christians who are absolute pacifists. In neither case, regardless of the quality to their arguements, can it be said that they represent the mind of their respective communions.

Again, I believe the greater issue is the fact that Orthodox women have the highest abortion rate of any religious group and the need to respond to this tragedy. I believe that responsible contraception is part of the solution.

Axios

Axios wrote:

I'd be interested in hearing more about these statistics. My understanding is that the higher rate is in those countries which were formerly controlled by the Soviets where abortion was for decades the routine form of birth control.

What is not needed is for the Church to soft pedal her teachings on the sanctity of life. The Church should also forcefully teach that sexual intimacy is only for those who are married. Sadly, there are movements otherwise seeking to legitimize pre-maritial sex or homosexual relationships.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Exactly. Russia, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia.

Of course not.

This doesn't seem to negate that Orthodoxy does not need to start telling married couples they cannot use contraception.

You are sadly unaware of the social situation most Orthodox Christians live under. Brutal and violent reactions against gay people have the upper hand.

Axios

Accepting the Church's teaching regarding the sinfulness of homosexual acts does not mean one should support "brutal and violent reactions against gay people." Such is an unfair accusation.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Moronikos,

Well I think I came on stronger than I intended with my last post. I can't claim to understand what you or your wife experienced. I also cannot, however, condone what I see going on in Orthodoxy "officially" and in Catholicism "de facto" which is the idea that children are not necessary, that it's okay to have 1 kid* (when you are healthy), that it's okay to "decide" when we "want" to have children, etc. as if children are a commodity like potatoes!

That contraceptive mentality is destorying Europe right now and it will destory the US too. I was reading the New York Times last week and they had yet another article about how most Italians are only having one child which is causing population drop. They will have to cut out their social security system, work til age 70, etc. to try and combat this. Yikes! What are we doing to our Christian culture! It's GONE!

So while I can see you as justified in your anger towards those who would put a "one size fits all" solution to contraception, I can also see how the modern Orthodox practice de facto of unlimited contracepting is playing right into the destruction of our culture. This is an issue I struggle with often. I personally don't contracept at all (I don't even use NFP by the way although i do NOT see it as "contraception"), but I'm not going to judge others in a situation like yours that do. Sterilization, however, is 100% a sin in my eyes because it is self-mutilation.

In Christ,

anastasios

Hmmm...to carry your argument a bit futher...the following would be 100% sin as well, since they would also be considered self-mutilation: tattoos, pierciings, warts removed, circumcision, cosmetic surgery of any sort, someone who carries genetic markers for breast cancer having radical masectomies and the list could go on an on. I might buy your theory about sterilization if the sole purpose was to avoid having children just to avoid having children, but in the case named above I don't think that holds water. In theology we are taught that sex in marriage has two ends...procreation and to strengthen the bond of love between the man and woman. Which end is the most important? If a couple are infertile and have no chance of having children naturally does that mean they are not allowed to have sex? Likewise, if because of a health problem where pregnancy would threaten the life of the woman, does that mean they are obliged to put one more stress on an already stressed relationship by not allowing them to enjoy one another sexually? I think the standard Orthodox reaction to this situation is the most pastorally minded. I doubt the priest who gave them permission for the surgery would issue a blanket permission to all and sundry to go out and get their tubes tied. And as for the couple, the very fact that they consulted their priest for advice about what is allowed, shows their good faith. I firmly believe that clergy and well meaning do-gooders should stay out of people's bedrooms unless invited...even out of theoretical bedrooms. Some things are too private and personal for even theoretical discussion.

anamchristi

Dear Dave,

Maybe we had a misunderstanding. I spoke of th high abortion rate in societies that include a majority of the world's Orthodox faithful.

You responded to that section of my post, speaking of certain social movements.

I responded that these social movements (in the areas you and I were discussing) were weak and minor, while other social behaviors were excessive and more powerful.

You correctly make the point that "Accepting the Church's teaching regarding the sinfulness of homosexual acts does not mean one should support 'brutal and violent reactions against gay people.'"

However, it is not unfair to note that in the societies where most Orthodox live, their has been a general failure to uphold a non-violent opposition to homosexuality.

Axios